RE RAI APSHARA

CACV 147/2022

[2023] HKCA 384

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 147 OF 2022

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 381 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

Hon Cheung JA (giving the Decision of the Court)  :

1.  On 11 October 2022, this Court handed down judgment ([2022] HKCA 1501)  dismissing the applicant’s application to appeal an order of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 6 April 2022 refusing her application for leave to apply for judicial review in respect of her non-refoulement claim.

2.  On 9 December 2022, the applicant filed a notice of motion and affirmation applying for leave to appeal this Court’s order to the Court of Final Appeal out of time.  The applicant also lodged written submission within time.

3.  Having considered the applicant’s documents, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on paper without an oral hearing.  We have, therefore, proceeded to determine the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents in the case.

4.  The background to this case and the applicant’s claim have been set out in our judgment.  We will not repeat them.

5.  Section 24(2)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (‘HKCFAO’)  (Cap. 484)  provides that application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal shall be filed within 28 days from the date of the judgment to be appealed from.  Section 24(5)  further provides that the Court of Appeal may extend the time for the filing of the notice of motion.

6.  The applicant’s present application is out of time by about one month.  The applicant in her affirmation stated that she was late due to a lack of knowledge and insufficient resources.  This is a bare allegation unsupported by any particulars or explanation.  We do not accept such explanation for the delay.

7.  As to the merit of the intended appeal, section 22(1)(b)  of the HKCFAO provides that leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal may be granted 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 Court of Final Appeal for decision.

8.  The notice of motion stated :

‘ Respected Sir / Madam, I am late for apply due to lock of knowledg and insuffiecient sources. Please accept my filling application so that i can process my case further. I hope i will get your favour.’

9.  The applicant’s written submission complained of her fear that it was unsafe to return, her facts in her case being ignored by decision makers, that she wishes to stay in Hong Kong until her problems are solved, that she has no strength to fight the police, that her country was corrupt, and that she is an asylum seeker who does not have enough resources.

10.  We are of the view that the grounds and arguments put forward by the applicant are devoid of merit.  They do not constitute viable grounds for giving leave to appeal.  Importantly, no question of great general or public importance has been identified as required by section 22(1)(b)  of the HKCFAO.

11.  Nor do we see any basis for the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).

12.  As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, the intended appeal has no merit and there is no basis for us to extend the time for the filing of the notice of motion.  Accordingly, we dismiss the notice of motion.