RE MAYA SETIANINGRUM JUMBADI

CACV 352/2018

[2019] HKCA 175

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 352 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 714 of 2017)

__________________________

__________________________

_______________

JUDGMENT

_______________

Hon L Chan J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  On 27 July 2018, Deputy High Court Judge Woodcock (“the judge”) gave a judgment refusing to extend time for the applicant to apply for leave for judicial review and, alternatively, refusing leave for judicial review on the merits. 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 (“the Director”) rejecting her non‑refoulement claim, but she made the application out of time.

2.  On 27 November 2018, this court (Barma JA and L Chan J) gave a judgment refusing to give leave to the applicant to appeal to this court against the judge’s refusal to extend time for the applicant to apply for leave for judicial review.

3.  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.

4.  The applicant subsequently applied, by a notice of motion dated 5 December 2018, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant stated in her notice of motion the following for consideration of whether leave should be granted:

“1. Error/misdirection in law. Failing to take into account the considerations of psychological strain and threats to me, resulting from repeated threats to me in person and/or beating on threats to my family members.

2. Irrationality. Failure to give reasons for assessment of lack of BOR 3 risk and/or insufficient basis to support conclusion of lack of BOR3 risk.

3. Failure to consider the concept of extended state acquiescence as expounded by Lam J (as he then was) in TK v Jenkins”

5.  In compliance with the directions of the court, the applicant lodged a set of written submissions in support of her application on 19 December 2018.  In her written submissions, which are very similar to her written submissions for the appeal before this court, the applicant repeated her alleged grounds of fear for refoulement and the errors allegedly committed by the Board and the Director.

6.  Having considered the applicant’s notice of motion and written submissions, 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 her notice of motion and written submissions.

7.  This court has refused to grant leave for the applicant to appeal to this court against the judge’s refusal to extend time for her to apply for leave for judicial review.  Such decision is final and not amenable to further appeal to the Court of Final Appeal: see section 14AB of the High Court Ordinance; Cap. 4 and The Incorporated Owners of Po Hang Building v Sam Woo Marine Works Ltd (2017) 20 HKCFAR 240.

8.  In any event, the matters stated by the applicant in her notice of motion and written submissions do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant has failed to identify any question which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision, 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 in her notice of motion and written submissions.  As we have observed at [15] of our judgment, the applicant’s complaints are directed at the decisions of the Board and Director but not the decisions of the judge below.  For the reasons given at [15], we are of the view that these complaints are not reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.

9.  For these reasons, the notice of motion dated 5 December 2018 is dismissed.