RE HENI WAHYUNINGTIAS

CAMP 256/2022, [2024] HKCA 591

On appeal from [2022] HKCFI 907

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 256 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 905 OF 2019)

____________________

____________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

Hon Barma JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  On 8 March 2023, this court (Kwan VP and Barma JA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of DHCJ KW Lung dated 4 April 2022 refusing to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dismissing her appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting her non‑refoulement claim.

2.  The facts and issues in the applicant’s application, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment.[1]  We will not repeat them here.

3.  The applicant subsequently applied, by a Notice of Motion filed on 24 April 2023, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the applicant stated that she “did not get justice”.

4.  In her written submissions lodged on 2 May 2023, the applicant merely repeated the grounds on which she relied in the application for extension of time to appeal, including that she apparently did not receive the CALL-1 Form on time.

5.  On 7 July 2023, the applicant purportedly sought a “dismissal of the appeal, with the notice of motion filed on [24 April 2023]” by filing a Request for Dismissal of Appeal (“the Request”).  No explanation whether in the form of an affirmation or written submissions was given for the Request.  By reference to the date of 24 April 2023 (i.e. the date of the Notice of Motion), it would appear that the Request was in substance for dismissal of her application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal by way of the Notice of Motion.  Notwithstanding the Request, the purpose of which is unclear, we shall deal with the application on its merits.

6.  Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion and written submissions, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on the papers.  We have, therefore, determined the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents filed.

7.  The matters stated by the applicant do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484.  Nor is any such question apparent to us from the matters she has raised.

8.  Neither the Notice of Motion nor the written submissions identify any supposed error in our judgment and they raise no ground that is reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.

9.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

10.  For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 24 April 2023 is dismissed.