AKTER LABONI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CAMP 536/2022, [2023] HKCA 696

On An Intended Appeal From [2022] HKCFI 1392 &

[2022] HKCFI 3189

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 536 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 365 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

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

1.  On 26 April 2023, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s application for leave to appeal out of time against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan dated 17 May 2022 refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review.

2.  The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 28 January 2019, whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 25 January 2018.

3.  By Notice of Motion dated 8 May 2023, the Applicant applies for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant alleged that she did not get justice, and wanted to go to the Court of Final Appeal.

4.  In her written submissions dated 22 May 2023, the Applicant repeated her claim for non-refoulement protection, and that she wanted to go to the Court of Final Appeal.

5.  In neither the Notice of Motion nor written submissions has the Applicant identified any error in the CA Judgment or any proper ground of appeal against the CA Judgment.

6.  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 the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal in any civil cause or matter if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal (as the case may be), 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.

7.  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.

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