RE IKA FITRIANA

CACV 51/2021

[2021] HKCA 1697

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 51 OF 2021

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 2286 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon K Yeung J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  On 17 August 2021, this court (Barma JA and K Yeung J)  handed down our judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge C P Pang given on 2 February 2021 refusing leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “Board”)  dismissing her appeal from the decision of the Director of Immigration (the “Director”)  rejecting her non-refoulement claim.

2.  The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, have set out in our judgment.[1]  We will not repeat them here.

3.  The applicant subsequently on 23 August 2021 applied, by a Notice of Motion filed, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant states in the Notice of Motion that:

“The [Director] and the [Board] rejected my non-refoulement claim. The High Court and the Court of Appeal refused my leave to apply for judicial review. Finally I want to go to the Court of Final Appeal.”

4.  The applicant lodged written submissions in support of the application on 6 September 2021.    

5.  Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion and written submissions, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on the papers.  We have, therefore, determined the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents filed.

6.  In the written submissions, the applicant claims that she has threats in her life in Indonesia.  She claims that the decisions of the Director and the Board are not correct.  She recites the history that the Court of First Instance has refused her leave, and that this court has dismissed her appeal.  She has not however identified any error in our judgment.  She then merely states with no supporting reasons that “Now I want to go to the Court of Final Appeal, because the Court of Final Appeal will grant my leave”. 

7.  Those submissions lack particulars, and have in our view no merits.

8.  The applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine, as required by section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484.  Nor is any such question apparent to us from the matters she has raised. 

9.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

10.  For the above reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 23 August 2021 is dismissed.