RE BERNABE JACQUELINE ASUNCION

CACV 397/2022

[2023] HKCA 34

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 397 OF 2022

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 613 OF 2019)

_____________________

_____________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

Hon Chu VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  On 22 November 2022, this court handed down a judgment ([2022] HKCA 1735) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 16 September 2022 refusing her leave to apply for judicial review.

2.  On 28 November 2022, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal this court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  She has also put in a written submission to support the application.

3.  Having considered the Notice of Motion and written submission, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on paper without an oral hearing.  We have therefore proceeded to determine the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents in the case.

4.  The background to this case and the applicant’s claim has been set out in our judgment.  We will not repeat them.

5.  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 may be granted if 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.

6.  The Notice of Motion states that the judgments of the Court are not good for the applicant and she wants to go to the Court of Final Appeal.

7.  In her written submission, the applicant says that she cannot return to the Philippines because her life will be under threat as her enemy is powerful and she is powerless.  She also says that many of the asylum seekers face similar problem and she wants to go to the Court of Final Appeal both for herself and for all asylum seekers’ sake.  

8.  The matters put forward by the applicant do not amount to viable grounds for the intended appeal.  Importantly, she has failed to identify any question of great general and public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance.  The fact that other non-refoulement claimants face problem like hers at home by itself does not amount to a question of great general and public importance.  We also do not see any basis for the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b). 

9.  As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, we dismiss the Notice of Motion.