SITI-KHOMARIYAH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER

CACV 255/2022

[2023] HKCA 109

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 255 OF 2022

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 58 OF 2019)

________________________

_____________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

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

1.  On 14 November 2022, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan dated 17 June 2022 refusing to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dated 3 December 2018, whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 18 April 2018.

2.  By Notice of Motion dated 3 January 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 COI Information and my previous facts which were in favor while rejecting my claim. Actual life occur different situation then what is mentioned in COI Information. The Officer and [court] prefers to ignore the [overwhelming] of the evidence of this violence towards minorities searching for unrealistic silver lining. The Decision is [betray] a bias and formula approach unlikely fairly access the danger of my life and clearly not reasonable.”

3.  In the Applicant’s affirmation dated 12 December 2022, she alleges that the “Decisions” are unlawful, and fail to take into account the dangers and the risk to her life in Indonesia. She states that she does not want to go back to her home country in Indonesia because her life will be in danger there. She has not identified any specific alleged error in the CA Judgment.

4.  The Applicant has failed to lodge written submissions in support of the application contrary to the directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals dated 3 January 2023.

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.