RE VARGAS ARNELYN VICENTE

CACV 302/2020

[2021] HKCA 844

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 302 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1970 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.  On 5 February 2021, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against this Court’s (Au JA and G Lam J) judgment of 27 January 2021 (“the Judgment”) [2021] HKCA 108.  In the Judgment, we dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the Deputy Judge”) dated 14 July 2020, refusing her leave to apply for judicial review.

2.  The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as the 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) provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”) at the discretion of this Court or the CFA 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 CFA for decision.

4.  In her Notice of Motion, the applicant raised the following grounds of appeal:

“1. Failure to consider that I would face real risk once I would return to my country of origin. My life will be at danger and my enemies still looking for me to harm me. I would face serious risk upon refoulement.

2. Failure to proper consider my claim under BOR2 risk.

3. Failure to proper observation my fear in my claim.

4. Failure to proper observation into country of origin condition (COI) information.” [sic]

5.  In her written submissions of 18 February 2021 filed pursuant to the directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals, the applicant advanced several grounds directed at the decision makers and the Deputy Judge.  Her only complaint made against the Judgment was that it wrongly decided that her claim had no merits.  She submitted that her claim was not a private matter and that the decision makers did not observe her fear properly.

6.  In our view, the applicant’s application is totally without merit.  The matters raised in the Notice of Motion and written submissions are effectively those advanced before but rejected by us with reasons stated at [22] - [23] of the Judgment.  Other than the aforesaid bare and general allegations, the applicant simply failed to pinpoint any specific errors in the Judgment.  These are therefore not viable grounds of appeal.

7.  In the circumstances and in any event, we also do not consider that there is any question of great general or public importance or which otherwise ought to be submitted to the CFA for determination.

8.  For these reasons, we refuse to grant leave to appeal to the CFA, and dismiss the applicant’s Notice of Motion.