|
CACV 198/2019
[2019] HKCA 1200
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 198 OF 2019
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1921 of 2018)
________________________
| |
Sheikh Yasmeen Abdulsattar |
Applicant |
| |
and |
|
| |
Torture Claims Appeal Board/
Non‑refoulement Claims Petition Office |
Putative
Respondent |
| |
The Director of Immigration |
Putative
Interested Party |
________________________
| Before: Hon Kwan VP, Yuen JA and Toh J in Court |
| Date of Written Submissions: 6 September 2019 |
| Date of Judgment: 13 December 2019 |
________________
JUDGMENT
________________
Hon Toh J (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. This is the applicant’s application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against a judgment of the Court of Appeal handed down on 19 August 2019 ([2019] HKCA 928) dismissing her appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung on 12 April 2019. By her decision the learned judge had refused the applicant’s application for leave to seek judicial review of the decision of the adjudicator of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) concerning her non‑refoulement protection claim.
2. By a Notice of Decision dated 14 June 2017, the Director of Immigration rejected the applicant’s claim.
3. The applicant appealed to the Board against the Director’s decision and her appeal was dismissed by the Board on 7 September 2018.
4. She filed a Form 86 on 13 September 2018 to seek leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Board. Her application was refused by Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung on 12 April 2019.
5. The applicant filed the Notice of Appeal against the decision of the judge on 17 May 2019, the appeal was heard on 13 August 2019. It was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 19 August 2019.
6. The applicant filed a Notice of Motion on 23 August 2019 and lodged her written submissions on 6 September 2019.
7. Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, the Registrar of Civil Appeals had directed on 27 August 2019 that the Notice of Motion shall be determined on paper only without an oral hearing. We think it appropriate to do so, and will determine this application on paper.
The grounds of appeal
8. In the Notice of Motion, the applicant stated that the learned judge did not give good reasons as to why her claim was refused.
9. Her contention stated in her written submissions are summarised as follows:
(1) she was not given sufficient time for her interview and that the reasons put forward by the learned adjudicator were merely her idea without considering that it was impossible for her to stay in India;
(2) that she came to Hong Kong to save her life because her husband wanted to kill her;
(3) that she was not given any legal assistance and therefore could not understand the law;
(4) that she was not given enough time to vocalize her claim;
(5) that the interpreter did not accurately interpret her speech; and
(6) that the learned adjudicator was not neutral in her demeanor and had decided to cancel her claim.
Discussion and Disposition
10. Section 22(1)(b) of Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484, provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, from any judgment of the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter, whether final or interlocutory, if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, as the case may be, 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.
11. The applicant’s grounds of appeal do not constitute valid grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. She has failed to identify any questions of great general or public importance which ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for determinations in accordance to the section 22(1)(b). She has not advanced any reasonably arguable grounds to reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal. There is also no basis for granting leave on the “or otherwise” under section 22(1)(b).
12. We therefore dismiss the application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.
(Susan Kwan)
Vice President |
(Maria Yuen)
Justice of Appeal |
(Esther Toh)
Judge of the
Court of First Instance |
The applicant (appellant), acting in person
|