RE PUNAM GHARTI MAGAR SINJALI

CACV 84/2019

[2019] HKCA 918

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 84 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1179 OF 2018)

___________________________________

___________________________________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

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

1)  Leave to appeal to Court of Final Appeal

1.1  On 19 June 2019, this Court handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung given on 15 February 2019 in which he refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review (‘Decision of the Judge’).

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

1.3  The applicant now applies, by a notice of motion dated 20 June 2019, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.

1.4  The applicant stated in notice of motion that her complaints were not considered by the Court of Appeal.  This lacks any meaningful particulars.

1.5  The applicant’s written submission also lacked specificity and relevance.  She reiterated problems of state acquiescence in Nepal.  She complained that the Director did not understand the situation in Nepal.  She complained that the unified screening mechanism is wrong.  She complained that the Board who dealt with her case was the same person who dealt with her case at the Immigration Department, when it was not.  

2)  Legal principles

2.  Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) (‘HKCFAO’) 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.

3)  Our view

3.1  The matters stated by the applicant in her notice of motion and written submission do not constitute grounds for granting leave 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 in accordance with section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.  Nor is there any such question apparent to us from the matters she has raised in her notice of motion and written submission.

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

4)  Disposition

4.  For these reasons, the notice of motion dated 20 June 2019 is dismissed.