RE LAELA FITRIANI

CACV116/2020

[2021] HKCA 1115

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 116 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 1905/2018)

____________________

____________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.  On 1 April 2021, this court (Poon CJHC and Barma JA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung (“the judge”) on 8 May 2020 refusing leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dismissing her appeal from the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting her non‑refoulement claim.

2.  The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment.[1] We will not repeat them here.

3.  The applicant subsequently applied, by a Notice of Motion dated 1 April 2021, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on the ground that:

“I want to challenge the decision [given on 1 April 2021].”

4.  The applicant lodged a written submission in support of the application on 12 April 2021.  In the written submission, the applicant summarized the events giving rise to her claim.

5.  Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion and written submission, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on the papers.  We have, therefore, determined the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents filed.

6.  The matters stated by the applicant do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484.  Nor is any such question apparent to us from the matters she has raised.  

7.  The Board dismissed her claim for non-refoulement protection on the ground that state protection would be available and that internal relocation was viable. As we have held in [15] of our judgment, the applicant failed to substantiate any public law error in the Board’s Decision.  The grounds relied on by the applicant in the application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal only repeated the events giving rise to her claim but did not identify any error in our judgment.  In our view, these grounds are not reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.

8.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

9.  For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 1 April 2021 is dismissed.