RE ETIK ISWANTI

CACV 15/2019

[2019] HKCA 693

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 15 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 709 OF 2018)

_________________

_________________

_________________

D E C I S I O N

_________________

Hon G Lam J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  On 2 May 2019, this court (Barma JA and G Lam J) dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Josiah Lam given on 9 January 2019 refusing leave for the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dismissing her appeal from the decisions of the Director of Immigration rejecting her non‑refoulement claim.

2.  The applicant subsequently applied, by Notice of Motion dated 7 May 2019, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant stated in the Notice of Motion that:

“ I am not satisfied with the decision because its bring more danger to my life. I don’t have enough sources to protect myself in my own country. I can’t survive for long if I returned back. So, please help me to stay here until I have problem.” [sic]

3.  In compliance with the directions of the court, the applicant lodged a written submission in support of the application on 20 May 2019.  We see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on paper.

4.  In her written submission, the applicant reiterated that loan sharks were dangerous and that she feared for her safety if she returned to Indonesia.  She complained that the board did not conduct sufficient inquiry of relevant country of origin information, failed to give reasons, failed to take account of her psychological strain, and wrongly decided that internal relocation was viable.

5.  In our view, the matters stated by the applicant in the Notice of Motion and written submission do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484).  Nor is any such question apparent to us from the matters she has raised.  We have dealt with the issue regarding the alleged danger upon her return at [13] of our judgment.  The applicant has failed to identify any error in our judgment.  There is no reasonably arguable issue for decision by the Court of Final Appeal.

6.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

7.  For these reasons, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.