|
CACV 506/2021
[2022] HKCA 774
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 506 OF 2021
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 294 OF 2019)
________________________
| BETWEEN |
|
|
| |
POONAM GURUNG |
Applicant |
| |
and |
|
| |
TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE |
Putative Respondent |
| |
and |
|
| |
DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION |
Putative
Interested Party |
_____________________
Before: Hon Cheung and Chow JJA in Court
Date of Written Submissions: 20 May 2022
Date of Judgment: 15 July 2022
________________
J U D G M E N T
________________
Hon Chow JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. On 4 May 2022, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the order made by Deputy High Court Judge Suffiad on 4 November 2021 refusing to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 24 January 2019.
2. The Applicant now applies by Notice of Motion dated 10 May 2022 for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the following is stated:
“… It’s my humble request to you that I have problem in own country. Please give me some time to stay here so that I can solve my problem. At this moment I cannot go back to my home country because danger still there for me. Please allow me to process further my case. I will be great full your kindness.”
3. In her written submissions in support of the application dated 20 May 2022, the Applicant repeats that she cannot return to her own country, and asks to be allowed to stay in Hong Kong. She has not pointed to any alleged specific error in the CA Judgment.
4. 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.
5. 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 “or otherwise” limb in s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance.
6. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is refused and the Notice of Motion is dismissed.
(Peter Cheung)
Justice of Appeal
|
(Anderson Chow)
Justice of Appeal
|
The Applicant, acting in person
|