RE MAGAR NISHA

CAMP 425/2022, [2024] HKCA 1142

On an intended appeal from [2021] HKCFI 859

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 425 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 1408 OF 2018)

____________________

____________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.  On 28 March 2023, this court (Kwan VP and Barma JA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of DHCJ KW Lung dated 23 September 2022 refusing to extend time for the applicant to appeal against his decision dated 1 April 2021 refusing to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dismissing her appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting her non‑refoulement claim, as well as the decision of the Director itself.

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

3.  The applicant subsequently applied, by a Notice of Motion filed on 3 April 2023, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the applicant contended, inter alia, that:

(1)  she did not receive the CALL-1 Form from the court;

(2)  she was deprived “of the right to make full grounds for appeal”, and that she was disadvantaged by the lack of interpretation assistance.

4.  In the applicant’s written submissions lodged on 18 April 2023, she repeated that the lack of interpretation assistance in the proceedings amounted to “procedural unfairness”, and that, inter alia, this court’s judgment dated 28 March 2023 did not “make logical sense at all”.

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.  The matters stated by the applicant do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. 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.

7.  The Notice of Motion fails to provide any particulars of any supposed errors in our judgment and it raises no ground that is reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.

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

9.  For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 3 April 2023 is dismissed.