RE MARMI BT MARDI SATIMUN

CACV 19/2019

[2019] HKCA 782

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 19 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 533/2018)

-----------------------------------

-----------------------------------

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.  On 2 May 2019, this court (Barma JA and G Lam J) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Josiah Lam (“the judge”) on 8 January 2019 refusing leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dismissing her appeal from the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting her non‑refoulement claim.

2.  The facts and issues in the appeal, 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 dated 6 May 2019, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant stated in the Notice of Motion that:

“I am not satisfied with the decision because my life is not safe in my own country. I am seeking your help so that I can save my life. I hope you will give me your kind favour. I can’t go back to my country at this moment. Please help me to stay here until I have problem.”

4.  The applicant lodged a written submission in support of the application on 17 May 2019.  In the written submission, the applicant explained why it is unsafe for her to return.

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 Notice of Motion and written submission.

6.  The matters stated by the applicant in the Notice of Motion and written submission 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 he has raised in the Notice of Motion and written submission.  

7.  As we have held at [13] of our judgment, the bare assertion by the applicant that it is unsafe for her to return is not a valid ground of appeal.  The applicant has not identified any viable ground of appeal. 

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

9.  For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 6 May 2019 is dismissed.