RE NURSANTI

CAMP 254/2021

[2022] HKCA 1505

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 254 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1299 OF 2018)

____________________

____________________

____________________

D E C I S I O N

____________________

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

1.  On 10 February 2022, this Court handed down a decision ([2022] HKCA 211) dismissing the applicant’s renewed application for extension of time to appeal an order of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung given on 19 March 2021 refusing her application for leave to apply for judicial review in respect of her non‑refoulement claim.

2.  On 20 May 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 has 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 decision.  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 over two months.  The applicant simply stated in her affirmation that she filed late because she did not have money, without any further explanation.

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 applicant in her notice of motion stated that there was error in her decision.  She complained that the decision maker relied on country of origin information and rejected her claims.  The decision was biased and it adopted a ‘formula approach’.  There was overwhelming evidence of violence against her.  There was danger to her life.  She complained that she did not have legal representation.

9.  In her written submissions, the applicant complained that her life was in peril and that she has no faith towards her local government.  She stated a broad definition of asylum.  She made various complaints against the Director and Board without clearly identifying if there was any error of law from the Judge.

10.  We are of the view that the grounds and arguments put forward by the applicant 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 leave under 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.