BINTI-SHOLEKAH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER

CACV 322/2022, [2023] HKCA 591

On Appeal From [2022] HKCFI 2422

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 322 OF 2022

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 117 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

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

1.  On 5 August 2022, Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan made an order (“the Order”) refusing to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of the Director of Immigration’s decision dated 29 June 2018 and the Torture Claims Appeal Board’s decision dated 15 November 2018.

2.  On 15 August 2022, the Applicant lodged an appeal to the Court of Appeal against the Order.

3.  On 14 September 2022, the Court of Appeal made an unless order (“the Unless Order”) requiring the Applicant to comply with the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 15 August 2022 concerning the lodgement of two sets of appeal bundle. The Applicant failed to comply with the Unless Order, and her appeal was dismissed on 21 September 2022.

4.  On 11 January 2023, the Applicant applied for relief from sanction in accordance with Order 2, rule 4 of the Rules of the High Court (Cap 4A).

5.  On 8 March 2023, the Court of Appeal gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s application for relief from sanction.

6.  By Notice of Motion dated 9 March 2023, the Applicant applies for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant states as follows:

“I would like to inform the Honourable Court that there is some error in law in my decision. Decision maker just relied on COL Information and my previous facts which were in favour while rejecting my claim. Actual life occur different situation then what is mentioned in COL Information. The Officer and cours prefers to ignore the overwhelming of the evidence of this violence towards minorities searching for unrealistic silver lining. The Decision is betrary a bias and formula approach unlikely fairly access the danger of my life and clearly not reasonable.” [sic]

7.  In her written submissions dated 21 March 2023, the Applicant sets out some general principles of law relating to non-refoulement claims, but fails to explain how those principles are relevant or applicable to her situation. The Applicant also fails to identify any error in the CA Judgment.

8.  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 the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal in any civil cause or matter 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.

9.  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.

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