SULISTIOWATI AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CACV 378/2021

[2022] HKCA 1599

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 378 OF 2021

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2694 OF 2018)

________________________

_____________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

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

1.  On 15 September 2022, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicants’ appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge To dated 26 July 2021 refusing to grant leave to the Applicants to apply for judicial review. The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 15 October 2018, whereby the Board dismissed the Applicants’ appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 26 October 2017 rejecting their non-refoulement claims.

2.  By Notice of Motion dated 21 September 2022, the 1^st Applicant, on behalf of herself and also on behalf of the 2^nd Applicant, applied for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the 1^st Applicant merely stated as follows: “I would like to inform to Court of Final Appeal. I am disagree with the decision made by the Director of Immigration as well decision made by the authorities as well. There is no such investigation in my case by the Board”.

3.  In the 1^st Applicant’s written submissions dated 5 October 2022, she repeated her complaint about the lack of language assistance, (which we have dealt with in the CA Judgment), and made a general allegation without any particulars that the lack of sound judgment and fairness throughout the non-refoulement claim process is appalling and should not be tolerated.

4.  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.

5.  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.

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

7.  For the avoidance of doubt, the non-compliance with Order 80 rule 2 in these proceedings is treated as a mere irregularity without rendering the 2^nd Applicant’s application a nullity.