SUYATMI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CAMP 71/2023, [2023] HKCA 861

On An Intended Appeal From [2022] HKCFI 1092 &

[2022] HKCFI 3787

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 71 OF 2023

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 325 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.  On 13 June 2023, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s application for an extension of time to appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan dated 28 December 2022 refusing to grant her an extension of time to appeal against the Judge’s earlier order dated 14 April 2022 refusing to grant her leave to apply for judicial review.

2.  The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 22 January 2019, whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 19 April 2017 rejecting the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

3.  By Notice of Motion dated 23 June 2023, the Applicant applies for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant stated the following:

“Director of Immigration dismissed my non refoulement claim. Adjudicator of Torture Claims Appeal Board too dismissed. The High Court and the Court of Appeal did not grant my leave. I did not get justice. To get justice I want to go to Court of Final Appeal.” [sic]

4.  In her written submissions dated 7 July 2023, the Applicant sets out some background information, and repeats her claim for non-refoulement protection, but fails to identify any error in the CA Judgment or any proper ground of appeal against the CA Judgment.

5.  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.

6.  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.

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