RE ALCI DALENTANG

CAMP171/2019

[2020] HKCA 556

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 171 OF 2019

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 996/2018)

____________________

____________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.  On 10 January 2020, this court (Chu JA and Barma JA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung (“the judge”) on 29 November 2018 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 application, 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 22 May 2020, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal out of time.  The applicant stated in the Notice of Motion that:

“I want to appeal the judge’s decision based on the fact that he disregards the cultural context of my claim. While there are general rules and COI on the country, it is imperative to understand that COI could only act as reference. To return to my home country at this point would put me in danger.”

4.  The applicant lodged a written submission in support of the application on 5 June 2020.  In the written submission, the applicant submitted that:

(1)  she could not fully explain her case because there was a lack of chance for interview; and

(2)  the judge wrongly doubted her credibility.

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 grounds of appeal advanced by the applicant lack particulars and we are of the view that 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 22 May 2020 is dismissed.