DAGDAGEN VIRGINIA BAGANGAO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CAMP 88/2023, [2023] HKCA 1006

On An Intended Appeal From [2022] HKCFI 3264 &

[2022] HKCFI 3762

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 88 OF 2023

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2483 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.  On 12 June 2023, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”)  dismissing the Applicant’s application for an extension of time to appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung dated 3 January 2023 refusing to grant her an extension of time to appeal against the Judge’s earlier order dated 25 October 2022 refusing to grant her 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 2 November 2018, whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 7 December 2017 rejecting the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

3.  By Notice of Motion dated 14 July 2023, the Applicant applies for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant states as follows:

“I would like to inform to Court of Final there are some error in my decision maker authorities. I am strongly opposed the decision made by the Director of Immigration and decision made by the Torture Claim Appeal Board. The authorities totally relied on some web news which officially not recognized. I do not think my case determined fairly.” [sic]

4.  In her written submissions dated 26 July 2023, the Applicant repeats her complaint about the lack of language assistance, and alleges that the lack of sound judgment and fairness throughout the non-refoulement claim process is appalling and should not be tolerated.

5.  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.

6.  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.  The complaint about the lack of language assistance has been dealt with at §17 of the CA Judgment.  The other complaint about lack of sound judgment or fairness throughout the non-refoulement claim process is a bare general allegation without particulars.  The Applicant has not identified any error in the CA Judgment, or raised any viable ground of appeal against the CA Judgment.  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.

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