RE SUDIMAH

CACV 243/2019

[2019] HKCA 1254

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 243 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 590 OF 2018)

___________________________

___________________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

Hon Bharwaney J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  By a judgment dated 9 September 2019 ([2019] HKCA 1030), the Court (Lam VP and Bharwaney J) dismissed the applicant’s appeal from the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan dated 24 May 2019 ([2019] HKCFI 603) refusing leave to apply for judicial review. In the latter decision, the judge refused leave for the applicant to apply for judicial review.

2.  On 11 September 2019, the applicant filed a notice of motion seeking leave from this Court to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The grounds relied on by the applicant were that the assessor failed to consider:

(1) her fear that, if returned to her country, her life would be in danger;

(2) her claim under the BOR 3 risk; and

(3) the country of origin condition information.

3.  On 25 September 2019, the applicant lodged her written submissions, in which she further elaborated her grounds of appeal.

4.  The Court explained at [15] of the judgment that the crux of the applicant’s application was whether she satisfied the statutory condition for reopening her claim notwithstanding she failed to return the completed SCF within the prescribed time.  The Board answered in the negative; and the Judge found no public law ground to reverse the Board’s decision.  The Court further explained at [19] that, in such circumstances, it was not necessary for the Board to evaluate the applicant’s risks of harm. Her appeal was therefore dismissed.

5.  In the present application, the applicant failed to engage with the Court’s reasons in dismissing her appeal.  Her regurgitation of arguments, which were already advanced before and duly rejected by the Court, are not reasonably arguable, in the intended appeal.

6.  In any event, the applicant failed in the notice of motion and the written submissions to raise any question of great general or public importance.  Nor do we see any reason to grant leave on the “or otherwise” limb.  The statutory criteria for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is therefore not met: section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484).

7.  For these reasons, we refuse to grant leave to the applicant to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. We dismiss the notice of motion accordingly.