TACTAY DANITAS TUBOG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER

CAMP 434/2021

[2022] HKCA 1003

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 434 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1733 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

Hon Kwan VP (handing down the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is the applicant’s Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal (Kwan VP and Chu JA) handed down on 25 March 2022 ([2022] HKCA 406). The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s summons for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan dated 2 June 2021 ([2021] HKCFI 1579) refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review concerning her non-refoulement claim.

2.  Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, the Registrar of Civil Appeals had directed on 14 April 2022 that the Notice of Motion shall be determined on paper without an oral hearing. The applicant lodged her written submissions on 28 April 2022. Having considered her written submissions and the papers, we think it is appropriate to determine this application on paper and proceed to do so.

3.  The applicant is a national of the Philippines. She came to Hong Kong to work as a foreign domestic helper on 27 November 2011. Her employment contract was terminated on 27 November 2013 and she subsequently overstayed. On 17 June 2016, she surrendered to the Immigration Department and raised a non-refoulement claim. Her claim was made on the basis that if she returned to the Philippines she would be harmed or killed by her husband and/or his creditor for failing to repay his loan borrowed on her behalf.

4.  She took out a summons in the court below to seek an extension of time to appeal against the decision of the judge. Her application was late for 13 days. It was refused by the judge on 28 September 2021[1].

5.  The applicant renewed her application to the Court of Appeal for extension of time to appeal on 6 October 2021. The application was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 25 March 2022 as the applicant failed to show any prospect of success in her intended appeal.

Grounds of appeal

6.  In the Notice of Motion filed on 14 April 2022, the applicant stated that she did not get real justice so she wanted to go to the Court of Final Appeal.

7.  In her written submissions, she reiterated the problem she faced in her country and stressed that her problem is real. She also asserted that all asylum seekers are facing the same problem. She further contended that the Director and the Board did not consider her arguments.

Analysis and disposition

8.  Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484 provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, from any judgment of the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter, whether final or interlocutory, 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.

9.  In the present application, the applicant’s grounds and submissions are just bare assertions without particulars or evidence in support. She failed to demonstrate that the Court of Appeal’s decision is wrong in dismissing her application and she has not identified any question of great general or public importance which ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for determination in accordance with section 22(1)(b). There is also no basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).

10.  For the above reasons, we refuse to grant leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and dismiss the Notice of Motion filed on 14 April 2022.