RE MAGOOLA NADIA AMIRA

CAMP 204/2021

[2022] HKCA 193

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 204 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 355 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.  On 24 November 2021, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against this Court’s (Cheung and Au JJA)  judgment of 24 November 2021 (“the Judgment”)  ([2021] HKCA 1743). In the Judgment, we dismissed the applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Campbell-Moffat J (“the Judge”)  dated 30 June 2020, refusing her application for leave to apply for judicial review ([2020] HKCFI 1404).

2.  The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as this Court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in the Judgment.  We will not repeat them here.  After reviewing the Notice of Motion, we see no reason to deviate from the usual practice to consider this application on paper pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1.

3.  Section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484 (“the HKCFAO”)  provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of this Court or the Court of Final Appeal 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.

4.  In her Notice of Motion, the applicant only stated:

“I want to challenge the decision.”

5.  The applicant lodged her written submissions on 8 December 2021.  In her written submissions, she repeated the factual basis of her non-refoulement claim and only stated that as her non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration and the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office, and that her application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge and the Court of Appeal, she wanted to go to the Court of Final Appeal.

6.  In our view, the applicant’s intended appeal is devoid of merit.  None of the matters raised in her Notice of Motion or written submissions has identified any specific error in the Judgment. She has not raised any proper ground of appeal.

7.  Accordingly, and in any event, the applicant has also failed to identify any question of great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b)  of the HKCFAO.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b)  of the HKCFAO.

8.  For these reasons, the Notice of Motion filed on 24 November 2021 is dismissed.