RINI SARTINI v. THE ADJUDICATOR OF THE NON REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE APPOINTED TO DETERMINE THE APPLICANT’S PETITION AND ANOTHER

CAMP 77/2021

[2022] HKCA 111

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 77 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 991 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.  On 26 October 2021, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s application for leave to appeal against the order dated 5 February 2021 of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan refusing to grant to the Applicant an extension of time to appeal against the Deputy Judge’s earlier order dated 22 November 2019 refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 12 April 2018.

2.  The Applicant now applies by Notice of Motion dated 16 December 2021 for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the following is stated:

“I would like to inform the Court of Final Appeal that there is some error in law in my decision maker just relied on COI information and my previous facts which were in favour to reject my claim. Actual life reality is a different situation than as mentioned in COI information. Officer and court prefers to ignore the overwhelming evidence of the violence towards a bias and formulated approach unlikely and fairly [assess] the danger of my life and clearly calculate to reject my claim.”

3.  Under s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484, an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of, inter alia, the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal 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.

4.  No question of great general or public importance involved in the proposed appeal is identified in the Notice of Motion. We are unable to see any such question being involved in the proposed appeal.  We are satisfied that the intended appeal has no merits and no reasonable prospect of success.  There is also no basis to grant leave to appeal on the “otherwise” limb in s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance.

5.  Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is refused and the Notice of Motion is dismissed.