SISNORIO MICHELE SOL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CAMP 36/2023, [2023] HKCA 1214

On appeal from [2022] HKCFI 2970

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 36 OF 2023

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2293 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.  This is the applicant’s application by way of Notice of Motion filed on 15 June 2023 for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal handed down on 15 June 2023 ([2023] HKCA 742). The Court of Appeal refused to grant extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung dated 27 September 2022 dismissing the application for leave to seek judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board concerning the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

2.  Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, the Registrar of Civil Appeals had directed that the Notice of Motion shall be determined on paper without an oral hearing. The applicant lodged her written submissions on 29 June 2023. Having considered her written submissions and the papers, we think it is appropriate to determine this application on paper and proceed to do so.

3.  The applicant’s Notice of Motion merely stated that ‘I want to review my case’.

4.  In her written submissions, she essentially repeated her previous submissions lodged to this court on 7 February 2023. In gist, the applicant contended that her life would be in danger if she returns to the Philippines as she still fears her husband would cause her harm.

Analysis and disposition

5.  Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484) provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, from any judgment of the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter, whether final or interlocutory, 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.

6.  The grounds raised in the applicant’s written submissions are mere assertions without any evidence in support. The Court of Appeal has duly considered the applicant’s explanation for the delay and given reasons for refusing to grant extension of time in the judgment dated 15 June 2023. The applicant failed to demonstrate that the Court of Appeal was wrong in dismissing her application, nor did she identify any question of great general or public importance which ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for determination in accordance with section 22(1)(b). There is also no basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).

7.  For these reasons, we dismiss the Notice of Motion filed on 15 June 2023 and refuse to give leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.