RE EKO WATI SUWARNO

CACV 501/2020

[2021] HKCA 1471

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 501 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 2020/2018)

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

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.  On 4 June 2021, this court (Barma JA and Lisa Wong J) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan on 16 July 2020 refusing to grant extension of time for her application for leave for judicial review and dismissing her application for leave for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dismissing her appeal from the decisions of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) 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 filed on 10 June 2021, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant stated in the Notice of Motion that:

“1. In my judgment the Honourable judges gave his decision, and dismissed my appeal. I would like to review to the Court of Final Appeal that I would face genuine risk if I would refoulement to my country of origin.

2. Failure to consider the correct country of origin into my country, where as I would be free of risk or not.

3. Failure to consider my claim properly under BOR3 risk, where clearly stated, no refoulement to the country like me who was persecuted pass [illegible] in my life.”

4.  The applicant lodged a written submission in support of the application on 17 June 2021.  In the written submission, the applicant identified a number of errors allegedly committed by the Board and the Director.  She submitted that this court erred in supporting the Board’s decision and in finding that she would not face real risk if she returns to her country.

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 documents filed.

6.  The matters stated by the applicant 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 she has raised.  

7.  None of the grounds advanced by the applicant engage our reasons for dismissing the appeal given at [15] – [19] of our judgment.  The applicant did not identify any supposed error in our judgment and has therefore failed to raise any ground that is reasonably arguable before the Court of Final 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 10 June 2021 is dismissed.