|
CAMP 468/2021
[2022] HKCA 1078
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 468 OF 2021
(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1993 OF 2018)
________________________
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
SAMANTELA JENNIFER ABANO |
Applicant |
| |
and |
|
| |
TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD |
Putative
Respondent |
| |
and |
|
| |
DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION |
Putative
Interested Party |
________________________
Before: Hon Au and Chow JJA in Court
Date of Written Submissions: 5 July 2022
Date of Judgment: 18 August 2022
_______________
J U D G M E N T
_______________
Hon Chow JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. On 4 May 2022, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s application for an extension of time to appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan dated 16 June 2021 refusing to grant the Applicant leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dated 7 September 2018.
2. The Applicant now applies by Notice of Motion dated 21 June 2022 for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant states: “I want to challenge the decision dated … 4 May 2022”. In her written submissions dated 5 July 2022, the Applicant repeats the facts of her case, but has failed to point to any alleged specific error in the CA Judgment.
3. 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 Final Appeal or the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter if, in the opinion of the Court of Final Appeal or the Court of 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.
4. 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.
5. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is refused and the Notice of Motion is dismissed.
(Thomas Au)
Justice of Appeal
|
(Anderson Chow)
Justice of Appeal
|
The Applicant, acting in person
|