|
CACV 359/2019
[2020] HKCA 111
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 359 OF 2019
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 1438 OF 2018)
--------------------------------
BETWEEN
| |
RITA SETIANI |
Applicant
(Appellant) |
| |
And |
|
| |
TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE |
1st Putative Respondent |
| |
DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION |
2nd Putative Respondent |
---------------------------------
Before: Hon Barma, Au JJA and S T Poon J in Court
Date of Written Submissions: 20 December 2019
Date of Judgment: 28 May 2020
___________________
J U D G M E N T
___________________
Hon S T Poon J (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. This court (AU JA and S T Poon J) handed down judgment on 29 November 2019 ([2019] HKCA 1309) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against an order of DHCJ K W Lung given on 29 July 2019 refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review concerning his non‑refoulement claim. 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 and will not be repeated here.
2. The applicant filed a Notice of Motion on 6 December 2019 for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and lodged his written submissions on 20 December 2019.
3. Pursuant to the directions made by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 12 December 2019, the Notice of Motion shall be determined on paper only without an oral hearing, unless the court otherwise directs. We agree it is appropriate to determine this application on paper.
4. In the Notice of Motion, the applicant stated as follows:
“1. Failure to consider my fear, that I would face genuine risk upon refoulement to my country of origin, my risk still in there, and my enemies would be harm me if I return.
2. Failure to consider my claim under BOR 2 and BOR 3 risk, where both provision were so protective as human rights, and humanitarian reasons.
3. Failure to consider the country of origin condition, whereas the country would not able to protect.”(sic)
5. In the written submissions the applicant repeated her skeleton submissions filed on 18 September 2019 in support of her appeal to this court. The grounds and arguments of the applicant had already been dealt with by this court in paragraphs 22 to 29 of our judgment.
6. Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) provides that leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal shall be granted at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal if the question in the appeal involves great general or public importance or otherwise ought to be determined by the Court of Final Appeal.
7. No question of great general or public importance has been identified in the grounds in the Notice of Motion.
8. Nor do we see any basis for granting leave on the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).
9. In the circumstances, we cannot find any basis for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.
10. By virtue of the above, the Notice of Motion dated 6 December 2019 is dismissed.
(Aarif Barma)
Justice of Appeal
|
(Thomas Au)
Justice of Appeal |
(S T Poon)
Judge of the
Court of First Instance |
The appellant, unrepresented, appeared in person.
|