|
CAMP 287/2021
[2022] HKCA 160
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 287 OF 2021
(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 784 OF 2018)
________________________
| BETWEEN |
|
|
| |
ANI NUR AINIAH |
Applicant |
| |
and |
|
| |
TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD |
1st Putative |
| |
|
Respondent |
| |
DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION |
2nd Putative |
| |
|
Respondent |
________________________
| Before: |
Hon Au and Chow JJA in Court |
| Date of Written Submission: |
4 January 2022 |
| Date of Judgment: |
28 January 2022 |
____________________
JUDGMENT
____________________
Hon Chow JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. On 11 November 2021, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s application for an extension of time to appeal against the order made by Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan on 8 April 2021 refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims AppealBoard / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 28 March 2018.
2. The Applicant now applies by Notice of Motion dated 21 December 2021 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 inform to Court of Final Appeal. There is some error in my case decision maker authorities. I am disagree with the decision made by the Director of Immigration and Torture Claim Appeal Board. The all authorities were relied on COI information and web news but actual life is different than to COI information. Because it is totally unfairness with me. Its toward to my life my life still danger in my home land in Indonesia.”
3. 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.
4. 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 “otherwise” limb in s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance.
5. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is refused and the Notice of Motion is dismissed.
(Thomas Au)
Justice of Appeal |
(Anderson Chow)
Justice of Appeal |
The Applicant, acting in person
|