RE ELOK-PASMAWATI

CAMP 228/2022

[2022] HKCA 1893

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 228 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 10 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon G Lam JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”). The applicant’s claim for non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong was rejected by the Director of Immigration and by the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”). Her application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision was dismissed by the Court of First Instance. Her application for extension of time to appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court in our judgment dated 8 September 2022.[1]

2.  By Notice of Motion filed on 8 November 2022, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA.  In that document the applicant stated that there was some error of law in the decision; that the decision-maker just relied on country of origin information and previous facts but the actual situation was different from what was mentioned in the country of origin information; that the Board and the courts have ignored the overwhelming evidence of violence towards minorities; and that the decision has shown a biased and formulaic approach.  In the accompanying affirmation, the applicant stated that she did not receive the judgment within the time stipulated for appeal.

3.  In her written submissions, the applicant set out certain general principles and passages from decided cases and statutes but did not explain how they apply in support of her intended appeal.

4.  There is no reason for us to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on the basis of the available materials without an oral hearing, as set out in paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1.

5.  We take the view that this application ought to be dismissed because the applicant has not shown that the intended appeal raises any question which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the CFA for decision (which is the condition for giving leave to appeal under section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484), and also because she has failed to show any prospects of success in the intended appeal.  Further, the application was made after the expiry of the 28-day period prescribed under section 24 of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance.

6.  Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.