RE SOREN SUME

CAMP 247/2020

[2022] HKCA 586

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 247 OF 2020

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 1829 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.  On 25 August 2021, this court (Poon CJHC and Barma JA)  handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of DHCJ K W Lung given on 13 July 2020 refusing leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board, which dismissed her appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration.

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 filed on 31 August 2021, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant stated in the Notice of Motion that:

“… there is some error in law in my decision. Decision maker just relied on COL information and my previous facts which were in favour while rejecting my claim. Actual life occur different situation then what is mentioned in COL Information. The Officer and courts prefers to ignore the overwhelming of the evidence of this violence towards minorities searing for unrealistic silver lining. The Decision is a betray a bias and formula approach unlikely fairly access the danger of my life and clearly not reasonable.”

4.  In her written submissions lodged on 13 September 2021, the applicant referred to various authorities which established the trite principles of, inter alia, the requirement of a high standard of fairness in a decision-maker’s determination of a torture claim.  However, there was no attempt by the applicant to elaborate on how they were misapplied or contravened in the processing of her non-refoulement claim.

5.  Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion and written submissions, 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 advanced 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.  None of the matters stated in the Notice of Motion are in our view reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

8.  For these reasons, the Notice of Motion filed on 31 August 2021 is dismissed.