ANDRIANI WIBI ASTUTIK v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD /NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER

CACV 444/2020

[2021] HKCA 685

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 444 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 756 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon S T Poon J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  On 19 March 2021, this court (Chu JA and S T Poon J) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the Judge”) on 24 August 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 (“the Board”) dismissing her appeal from the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting her non-refoulement claim.

2.  The facts and issues in the appeal, 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 dated 23 March 2021, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant stated in the Notice of Motion that (sic):

“Respected sir/madam its on my humble request to you that I have problem in own country please give me some time to stay here so that I can solve my problem. At this moment I cannot go back to my home country because danger still there for me.

please allow me to process further my case.  I will be great full your kindness.”

4.  The applicant lodged a written submission in support of the application on 7 April 2021.  In the written submission, the applicant stated that she was not satisfied with the decision given by the Board as it had ignored many things relating to her case.  She claimed that there was much difference between what the Board thought and the actual situation in her home country.  She said torture and deaths of innocent people held in police custody were common there and that her life would be in danger if she were to return.  She said her well-wishers in her country were doing their best to solve her problems but at this moment it was not possible for her to go back.

5.  Pursuant to the directions made by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 24 March 2021, the Notice of Motion shall be determined on paper only without an oral hearing, unless the court otherwise directs.  We agree it is appropriate to determine this application on paper.

6.  Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484) provides that leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal shall be granted at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal if the question in the appeal involves great general or public importance or otherwise ought to be determined by the Court of Final Appeal.

7.  What was stated in the Notice of Appeal and the written submission do not constitute viable grounds for appeal. No question of great general or public importance has been identified in the grounds in the Notice of Motion.

8.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

9.  In the circumstances, we cannot find any basis for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

10.  For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 23 March 2021 is dismissed.