|
CACV 214/2021
[2022] HKCA 636
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 214 OF 2021
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 972 OF 2018)
____________________
| RE: |
AKTER SAFIA |
Applicant |
____________________
Before: Hon Barma JA and G Lam JA in Court
Date of Judgment: 20 May 2022
___________________
J U D G M E N T
___________________
Hon Barma JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. On 14 September 2021, this court (Barma JA and G Lam JA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of DHCJ Bruno Chan given on 27 April 2021 refusing to grant an extension of time to the applicant for her application for leave for judicial review and dismissing her application for leave to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dismissing her appeal from the decisions of the Director of Immigration rejecting her non‑refoulement claim.
2. The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment.[1] We will not repeat them here.
3. The applicant subsequently applied, by a Notice of Motion filed on 24 September 2021, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant stated in the Notice of Motion that the Board had (i) failed to consider the risks she may face if refouled; (ii) failed to observe relevant country of origin information; and (iii) failed to consider her claim under the BOR 3 risk[2].
4. In her written submissions lodged on 6 October 2021, the applicant in essence repeated the complaints set out in her Notice of Motion.
5. Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion and written submissions, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on the papers. We have, therefore, determined the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents filed.
6. In her written submissions, the applicant merely alleged that it was “improper” for the court to “support” the Board’s decision, but did not provide any basis or particulars in respect of this complaint.
7. The matters stated by the applicant 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.
8. Neither the Notice of Motion nor the written submissions identify any supposed error in our judgment and they raise no ground that is reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.
9. We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).
10. For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 24 September 2021 is dismissed.
(Aarif Barma)
Justice of Appeal |
(Godfrey Lam)
Justice of Appeal |
The applicant acting in person
[1] See [2021] HKCA 1280
[2] This refers to a genuine and substantial risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment covered by article 3 of s 8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance.
|