|
CAMP 198/2022
[2022] HKCA 1848
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 198 OF 2022
(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2202 OF 2018)
________________________
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
YULIANA RAKHMAWATI |
Applicant |
| |
and |
|
| |
TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD |
Putative
Respondent |
| |
and |
|
| |
DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION |
Putative
Interested Party |
________________________
Before: Hon Au and Chow JJA in Court
Date of Written Submissions: 23 November 2022
Date of Judgment: 23 December 2022
______________
J U D G M E N T
______________
Hon Chow JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. On 6 September 2022, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s application for leave to appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan dated 31 May 2022 refusing to grant to the Applicant an extension of time to appeal against an earlier order of the Judge dated 30 July 2021 refusing leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review. The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dated 20 September 2018, whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 1 March 2017.
2. The Applicant now applies by Notice of Motion dated 9 November 2022 for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant merely stated that she disagreed with the decisions of the Director and the Board, and alleged that the Board “significantly relied on the source of news which is not officially recognized or it is simply hearsay”.
3. In her written submissions dated 23 November 2022, the Applicant complained about the lack of language assistance, and alleged that “the lack of sound judgment and fairness throughout the non-refoulement claim process is appalling and should not be tolerated”. She also repeated the complaint that the Board “significantly relied on the source of news which is not officially recognized or it is simply hearsay”, and urged “the authorities to take into account the real procedural unfair[ness] throughout the case and to put public polices of trying to dispose of non-refoulement claims as quickly as possible aside”.
4. The complaint about lack of language assistance was dealt with by the Court at §17 of the CA Judgment. The rest of the Applicant’s allegations are general complaints without particulars.
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. 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.
(Thomas Au)
Justice of Appeal
|
(Anderson Chow)
Justice of Appeal
|
The Applicant, acting in person
|