PAMPAG AMY PABLICO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CACV 374/2022

[2023] HKCA 331

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 374 OF 2022

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 563 OF 2019)

________________________

_____________________

_____________________

J U D G M E N T

_____________________

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

1.  On 14 December 2022, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan dated 26 August 2022 refusing to grant her leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 20 February 2019, whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 27 July 2018.

2.  By Notice of Motion dated 20 February 2023, the Applicant applies for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. Attached to the Notice of Motion is a document entitled “Grounds of Appeal for Pampag Amy Pablico”. In that document, the Applicant states that she will be in grave danger if she should return to the Philippines, and repeats the factual basis of her non-refoulement claim. She also says that seeking help from government agencies in the Philippines would be an exercise in futility, the police and the government may not be able to protect her, and relocation in her country is out of the question for her.

3.  In her written submissions dated 6 March 2023, the Applicant repeats the matters stated in the abovementioned “Grounds of Appeal for Pampag Amy Pablico”. The Applicant has not pointed to any error in the CA Judgment, or identified any proper ground of appeal against the CA Judgment.

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.