RE YENSIROHIKA

CACV 540/2021

[2022] HKCA 1700

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 540 OF 2021

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2831 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.  On 21 September 2022, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against this Court’s judgment of 21 September 2022 (“the Judgment”)  ([2022] HKCA 1380). In the Judgment, we dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung dated 22 November 2021, refusing her application for leave to apply for judicial review ([2021] HKCFI 3445).

2.  The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as this Court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in the Judgment.  We will not repeat them here.  After reviewing the Notice of Motion, we see no reason to deviate from the usual practice to consider this application on paper pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1.

3.  Section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484 (“the HKCFAO”)  provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of this Court or the Court of Final Appeal 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 Court of Final Appeal for decision.

4.  In her Notice of Motion, the applicant only stated:

“I want to challenge the decision.”

5.  Pursuant to Practice Direction 2.1, the applicant lodged her written submissions on 5 October 2022. In those submissions, she only repeated the factual basis and procedural history of her non-refoulement claim, contending that she fled Indonesia out of fear as her mother and ex-husband threatened her.

6.  In our view, her intended appeal is clearly without substance.  At the outset, the allegations made in her Notice of Motion and written submissions are all bare and vague allegations unsupported by any evidence.  More importantly, she did not identify any specific error in the Judgment with sufficient particulars.  General assertions of her fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].  Accordingly, the applicant’s intended appeal plainly has no merit.

7.  Further, even taking her case at its highest, her allegations are fact-specific and do not relate to any question of great general or public importance.

8.  Accordingly, the applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b)  of the HKCFAO.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b)  of the HKCFAO.

9.  For the above reasons, the Notice of Motion filed on 21 September 2022 is dismissed.