RE EKA MARYANI

CACV 45/2021

[2021] HKCA 1696

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 45 OF 2021

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 226 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon K Yeung J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  On 17 August 2021, this court (Barma JA and K Yeung J)  handed down our judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge C P Pang given on 21 January 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”)  dismissing her appeal from the decision of the Director of Immigration (the “Director”)  rejecting her non-refoulement claim.

2.  The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, have been set out in our judgment.[1]  We will not repeat them here.

3.  The applicant subsequently applied, by a Notice of Motion filed on 27 August 2021, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant states in the Notice of Motion that:

“1. In my Notice of Appeal Decision, the Honourable Judges confirm the decision of the [Board] and the [Director]. My non-refoulement claim based on a true story in my past life, I would fear to return to my country of origin because of fear, I can’t live with fear in my country where my enemies are surrounding me.

2. Failure to consider the country of origin that my country authority is not able to protect me from the enemies whereas I am living in my country, I would be killed or serious harm by my enemies upon refoulement.”

4.  The applicant on 6 September 2021 lodged written submissions in support of the application. 

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.  In the written submissions, the applicant sets out certain alleged errors which she claims the Board and the Director have committed.  She then submits that “the Honourable judges support the [Board] Decision was improper, because they did not follow the high standard fairness for provide opportunity for my claim.”

7.  Those submissions lack particulars, and have in our view no merits.

8.  The applicant has otherwise failed, whether in the Notice of Motion or the written submissions, to identify any error in our judgment.  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. 

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

10.  For the above reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 27 August 2021 is dismissed.