|
CACV 283/2021
[2021] HKCA 1972
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 283 OF 2021
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1625 OF 2019)
| ____________ |
| RE: |
WIWIK IDAWATI |
Applicant |
____________
Before: Hon Au and G Lam JJA in Court
Date of Written Submissions: 24 November 2021
Date of Judgment: 23 December 2021
_________________
J U D G M E N T
_________________
Hon G Lam JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. The applicant is an Indonesian national whose non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration and the Torture Claims Appeal Board/adjudicator of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office. Her application for leave for judicial review of the Board’s decision was rejected by Deputy High Court Judge P Li,[1] and her appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court on 11 November 2021.[2]
2. The relevant facts and procedural history and the reasons for dismissing the appeal have been set out in our previous judgment and will not be repeated here.
3. The applicant now seeks, by Notice of Motion dated 16 November 2021, leave to appeal further to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the applicant stated:
“ It’s on my humble request to you that I have problem in own country please give me some time to stay here so that I can solve my problem. At this moment I cannot go back to my home country because danger still there for me. Please allow me to process further my case. I will be great full your kindness.”
4. Pursuant to the directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals under Practice Direction 2.1, this application is dealt with on paper without an oral hearing.
5. Her written submissions of 24 November 2021 are identical to her written submissions lodged previously for the appeal to this Court. We had already addressed and rejected those arguments in our judgment of 11 November 2021.
6. We are satisfied that there is no reasonable prospect of success in the intended appeal or any question involved which, by reason of its great general or public importance, ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484). Nor do we see any reason why the applicant should, for some other reason, be allowed to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.
7. The Notice of Motion is therefore dismissed.
(Thomas Au)
Justice of Appeal |
(Godfrey Lam)
Justice of Appeal |
The Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person
|