RE UMI SITI SURIFAH

CAMP 70/2020

[2021] HKCA 1042

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 70 OF 2020

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 2529/2018)

___________________

___________________

___________________

JUDGMENT

____________________

Hon Lam VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  On 8 June 2021, the Applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”) against this Court’s judgment of 13 May 2021. In that judgment we dismissed the Applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung on 19 July 2019 dismissing her application for leave to apply for judicial review.

2.  Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484 provides that an appeal shall lie to the CFA at the discretion of this Court or the CFA if 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 CFA for decision.

3.  In the Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the CFA, the Applicant raised the following matters in support of her application:

“ I would like to infomr the Honourable Court that there is some error in law in my decision. Decision maker just relied on COL Information and my previous facts which were in favor while rejecting my claim. Acual life occur different situation then what is mentioned in COL Information. The Officer and cours prefers to ignore the overwhelming of the evidence of this violence towards minorities searching for unrealistic silver lining. The Decision is betrary a bias and formula approach unlikely fairly access the danger of my life and clearly not reasonable.” [sic]

4.  Despite the acknowledgment by the Applicant on 8 June 2021 of the directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals regarding her obligation to lodge written submission, the Applicant did not do so.  In accordance with those directions, this Court shall now proceed to process her application on the basis the materials already before us.    

5.  In the materials before us, the Applicant has not raised any reasonably arguable ground of appeal on the merit of her claim, or any discernible or arguable ground for disturbing our judgment.  There is no question of great general or public importance or which otherwise ought to be submitted to the CFA for determination.

6.  For these reasons, we refuse to grant leave to appeal to the CFA, and dismiss the Applicant’s Notice of Motion.