SUPRIYATI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 271/2022

[2022] HKCA 1591

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 271 OF 2022

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1038 OF 2019)

____________________

____________________

____________________

JUDGMENT

____________________

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

1.  On 3 October 2022, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge To dated 30 June 2022 refusing to grant her leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 9 April 2019, whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 30 November 2017.

2.  The Applicant now applies by Notice of Motion dated 5 October 2022 for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant complains that:

(1)  she did not have a chance to put forward her case or arguments at an oral hearing of the appeal (even though she had given written consent for her appeal to be disposed of on paper without an oral hearing on 13 July 2022);

(2)  the Director and the Board failed to consider, or properly consider, her claim, and their assessments were not sufficient; and

(3)  she wished to seek protection for her life from her enemies.

3.  In her written submissions dated 17 October 2022, the Applicant argues that the Board and Director failed to take into account or give proper weight to relevant considerations and materials, and the judges failed to follow the high standard of fairness or properly inquire into her claim.

4.  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.

5.  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.

6.  Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is refused and the Notice of Motion is dismissed.