CHARACO CHARACO GENESIS HAIDEE v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CAMP 399/2021

[2022] HKCA 728

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 399 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL HCAL NO 2922 OF 2018)

____________________

____________________

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

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

1.  On 23 March 2022, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s application for an extension of time to appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge P Li dated 25 March 2021 refusing to grant the Applicant leave to apply for judicial review.

2.  The Applicant now applies by Notice of Motion dated 12 April 2022 for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the following is stated:

“I would like to request the Honourable Court to grant me an extension of time to file the Notice of Appeal because if I go back to my country then I will face hardship. Moreover, the Torture Claims Appeal Board has significantly relied on the source of news which is not officially recognised. The lack of credible information has result[ed] in groundless speculations. Also, there is an error in the decision. The decision maker just relied on the country of origin information (COI) which favours the rejection of my claims. As the actual situation is different from the COI.”

3.  The Applicant has not filed any written submissions in support of her application despite the directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals dated 12 April 2022.

4.  Under s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484, an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of, inter alia, the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal the question involved in the appeal is one which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision.

5.  No question of great general or public importance involved in the proposed appeal is identified in the Notice of Motion.  We are unable to see any such question being involved in the proposed appeal.  We are satisfied that the intended appeal has no merits and no reasonable prospect of success.  There is also no basis to grant leave to appeal on the “or otherwise” limb in s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance.

6.  Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is refused and the Notice of Motion is dismissed.