RE ORTIZ MARISA DAGALE

CACV 44/2021

[2021] HKCA 1370

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 44 OF 2021

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2494 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

Hon Cheung JA (giving the Decision of the Court)  :

I.  Leave to appeal to Court of Final Appeal

1.  On 23 July 2021, this Court (Cheung and Yuen JJA)  handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge C P Pang given on 26 January 2021 in which he refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review.

2.  The facts and issues of the appeal as well as the Court’s reasons for dismissing it are set out in our judgment.  We will not repeat them here.

3.  The applicant now applies, by a notice of motion filed on 30 July 2021, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant stated in her notice of motion that the Court did not consider her fear.  She stated that the Director and the Board did not consider that it was not safe for her to return.  She stated that there was a failure to observe country of origin information, a failure to consider BOR 3 risk, and that her life is still in danger.

4.  The applicant also lodged her written submissions.  She stated there was a failure to make sufficient enquiries into country of origin information.  She stated that she came to Hong Kong because it has a system in Hong Kong that can protect her.  She stated that the Court took into account irrelevant matters but had not taken into account relevant matters but without identifying them.  She stated that there was no observance of high standards of fairness.  She insisted that her story was true.  She stated that there was no proper assessment of her fearful situation.  

II.  Legal principles

5.  Under section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484)  (‘Ordinance’)  leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal will only be granted if the question to be determined involves great general or public importance or otherwise ought to be determined by the Court of Final Appeal.

III.  Our view

6.  The matters stated by the applicant in her notice of motion and written submissions do not constitute grounds for granting leave to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant has failed to identify any question of general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine in accordance with section 22(1)(b)  of the Ordinance. Nor is there any such question apparent to us from the matters she has raised in her notice of motion and written submissions. 

7.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b)  of the Ordinance.

IV.  Disposition

8.  For these reasons, the notice of motion dated 30 July 2021 is dismissed.