|
CACV 441/2019
[2020] HKCA 649
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 441 OF 2019
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2619 OF 2018)
_____________________
BETWEEN
|
AKTHER MOSAMMAT FATEMA |
Applicant
(Appellant) |
|
and |
|
|
TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE |
1st Putative Respondent |
|
and |
|
|
THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION |
2nd Putative Respondent |
_____________________
Before: Hon Yuen, Au JJA and Lisa Wong J in Court
Date of Written Submissions: 22 June 2020
Date of Judgment: 6 August 2020
___________________
J U D G M E N T
___________________
Hon Yuen JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. This court (Hon Yuen JA and Lisa Wong J) handed down judgment on 28 May 2020 ([2020] HKCA 370) dismissing the applicant’s appeal from an order of DHCJ K.W. Lung given on 16 September 2019 refusing her application for leave to apply for judicial review concerning her non-refoulement claim. The facts and issues in the appeal before the Court of Appeal, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment and will not be repeated here.
2. The applicant subsequently applied, by a Notice of Motion on 9 June 2020, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.
3. On 10 June 2020, the Registrar of Civil Appeals directed that the applicant shall lodge her written submissions on or before 23 June 2020, and the Notice of Motion shall be determined on paper only without an oral hearing. The applicant lodged her written submissions on 22 June 2020. We agree it is appropriate to determine this application on paper.
4. The applicant only stated the following in her Notice of Motion:
“1. In my appeal judgment the assessor did not consider my fear that why I would not return to my country of origin because of fully political dispute against current regime in my country, my claim is fully political conflict but not private dispute, for which my life would be at danger upon refoulement.
2. The assessment of my claim, the assessor gave their decision on based on paper, lack of inquiry about country of conditions, and did not [properly] consider under BOR 3 risk.” (sic)
5. In the applicant’s submissions, she mainly repeated her arguments which had been assessed by the Judge and this court in detail. She did not address the reasons in this court’s judgment at all.
6. Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) provides that leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal may be granted at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal if the question involves great general or public importance or otherwise ought to be determined by the Court of Final Appeal.
7. No question of great general or public importance has been identified in the Notice of Motion.
8. Nor do we see any basis for granting leave on the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).
9. By reason of the above, the Notice of Motion dated 9 June 2020 is dismissed.
| (Maria Yuen) |
(Thomas Au) |
(Lisa Wong) |
| Justice of Appeal |
Justice of Appeal |
Judge of the Court of First Instance |
The applicant, unrepresented, acting in person.
|