RE YAMON RIZA RAGA

CACV 376/2021

[2022] HKCA 1360

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 376 OF 2021

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 2757/2018)

____________________

____________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

Hon Lisa Wong J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

Application

1.  Before the court is a notice of motion filed on 6 December 2021 by the abovenamed applicant, applying for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”) against the judgment of this court (Barma JA and Lisa Wong J) dated 15 November 2021 ([2021] HKCA 1671) (“Judgment”). By the Judgment, we dismissed the applicant’s appeal from a decision dated 22 July 2021 ([2021] HKCFI 2058) by Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung, refusing her leave to apply for judicial review of the decision dated 13 November 2018 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) concerning her non-refoulement claim (“NRF Claim”).

Paper disposal appropriate

2.  Pursuant to Practice Direction 2.1 and the direction of the Registrar of Civil Appeals, unless this court otherwise directs, the notice of motion shall be determined on paper without an oral hearing.  Having reviewed the papers relevant to this application, we concur that a paper disposal is appropriate in this case.

Statutory threshold for leave to appeal to the CFA

3.  Under s 22(1)(b) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484), an appeal shall lie to the CFA at the discretion of the Court of Appeal (“CA”) or the CFA from any civil judgment of the CA if 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 CFA for decision.

Applicant’s contentions in support of leave to appeal to the CFA

4.  In seeking leave to appeal to the CFA, the applicant asserted in the notice of motion as follows (sic):

“I would like to inform Court of Final Appeal. There is some error in law in my decision maker. I am totally disagree with the decision of authorities and court because Respondent’s are relied col information and web news which and my Previous Facts which were favor on Reject my claim. Actual life occur different situation them mentioned col information. Officer and court prefers to ignore the overwhelming of the evidence of the vialance toward a bias and Formula approch unlikely fairly access the danger of my life.”

5.  The applicant’s written submission dated 20 December 2021 can be summed up into a complaint of lack of proper legal and language assistance to her as an unrepresented litigant, without which she could not understand the reasons for the decisions that had been made against her, nor could she formulate proper proposed grounds of judicial review/appeal.  It is the applicant’s case that this amounted to an error of law, procedural unfairness and failure to adhere to the high standards of fairness required in processing non-refoulement cases.

Discussion

6.  Applying s 22(1)(b), the applicant has plainly not, by her notice of motion or her written submission, raised any issue for determination by the CFA, whether of great, general or public importance or otherwise.

7.  Neither the notice of motion nor the applicant’s written submission engages the reasons given in the Judgment.  The applicant has failed to identify any error in the Judgment.  She just claimed to be dissatisfied with the Judgment (and the other decisions on the NRF Claim) without giving any coherent reasons or particulars.  Further, as noted in [8] of the Judgment, the Board found the perceived risk of future harm facing the applicant was low.  And any such risk (if any) will further be reduced or negated by the availability of reasonable state protection and internal relocation options.  The applicant has not articulated any errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality on the part of the Board that rendered such findings unsafe.  In our view, she has not put forward any ground that is reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.

8.  Nor do we see any scope to grant leave to appeal under the “or otherwise” limb.

9.  As neither of the statutory criteria under s 22(1)(b) for leave to appeal to the CFA is met, we dismiss the notice of motion.