RE ANITA SUSILOWATI

CAMP 184/2019

[2021] HKCA 1214

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 184 OF 2019

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 605/2017)

____________________

____________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.  On 23 March 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 Deputy High Court Judge Woodcock (“the judge”) on 27 June 2018 refusing to grant extension of time for her application for leave for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dismissing her appeal from the decisions of the Director of Immigration rejecting her non‑refoulement claim.

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

“…In the judgment dated 23 March 2021, the Honourable judges so clearly gave his decision that I don’t have any valid grounds for an extension of time for appeal. I was too late to file my appeal, the only reason is that my waiting for dependent visa, I did not intend to made my appeal, I was hope that my visa will be success, unfortunately I am still waiting and my judicial review application was refused, so that I seek an extension of time for appeal, and pray for leave for appeal.”

4.  The applicant lodged a written submission in support of the application on 14 April 2021.  In the written submission, the applicant submitted that:

“…2. I was late to submit my Judicial Review Application because I was not awareness about judicial system, it was fully my mistake because I don’t have any idea about appeal, I am seek pardon and apologies to this Court for being delay for my Appeal.

3. The Honourable Judge given order to refuse to extend the period the me to make an Appeal to the Court of Appeal by the way of summons for leave to appeal because of I were late to file my Judicial review application from the date of the

4.  Failing to take into account relevant considerations/taking into account irrelevant Consideration.  When assessing a non refoulement claim the Decision makers must pay due regard the applicable rules of law, have regard to all relevant matters and not to have regard to irrelevant matters.  It is submitted that the TCAB and the Director failed to take into account and / or give proper weight to relevant considerations and materials which he should have, and hence his decision is illegal.  Specially, both failed to give due regard to:”

5.  Having considered the applicant’s notice of motion and written submission, 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 stated 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.  The applicant claimed that she was late in bringing the intended appeal because of her dependent visa application.  We have already held at [16] of our judgment that this was not a valid excuse for the delay.

8.  The applicant advanced a number of other grounds in her written submission but all of them lacked particulars.  Further, the applicant did not identify any error in our judgment.  The applicant therefore failed to advance any viable ground for her application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

9.  In our view, none of the grounds advanced by the applicant is reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.

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

11.  For these reasons, the notice of motion dated 31 March 2021 is dismissed.