RE WIYANTI

CAMP 511/2021

[2022] HKCA 273

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 511 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2477 OF 2018)

__________________________

__________________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

Hon Chu JA giving the Judgment of the Court:

1.  On 18 January 2022, this Court handed down our judgment ([2022] HKCA 93) dismissing the applicant’s renewed application for extension of time to appeal the decision of Deputy High Court Judge C P Pang dated 4 February 2021 refusing to give her leave to apply for judicial review.

2.  On 20 January 2022, the applicant filed a notice of motion to apply for leave to appeal our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. She has also put in a written submission to support the application.

3.  Having considered the applicant’s notice of motion and written submission, 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 the application and the applicant’s non-refoulement claim has been set out in our judgment. We will not repeat them.

5.  Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484, 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.

6.  The notice of motion did not set out any ground in support of the application. It only stated that the applicant wants to go to the Court of Final Appeal to get justice.

7.  The applicant stated in the written submission that her enemies are powerful, they pay the police to help them, and as she was helpless in Indonesia, she came to Hong Kong to save her life. She contended that the decisions of the Director of Immigration and the Torture Claims Appeal Board were unreasonable, which mean she would be sent to Indonesia.

8.  The matters put forward by the applicant do not afford any basis for granting leave to appeal. Importantly, they all relate to the applicant’s claim and personal circumstances. It has not been shown that the intended appeal involves a question of great general or public importance. Further, for the reasons we gave in [19] and [20] of our judgment, the applicant’s assertion of risk of danger is unsustainable.

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

10.  As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, we dismiss the notice of motion.