RE MARY MANIANTHARA PAUL

CAMP 269/2021

[2022] HKCA 589

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 269 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1806 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon G Lam JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  The applicant is an Indian national whose non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration and the Torture Claims Appeal Board/adjudicator of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office. Her application for leave for judicial review of the Board’s decision was rejected by Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung,[1] and her application for extension of time to appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court on 27 January 2022.[2]

2.  The relevant facts and procedural history and the reasons for dismissing the appeal have been set out in our previous judgment and will not be repeated here.

3.  The applicant now seeks, by Notice of Motion dated 10 February 2022, leave to appeal further to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the applicant stated:

“ I am writing this grounds regarding my Notice of Appeal was dismissed by Court of Appeal. But I am not satisfied because still I have problem for me if I go at this moment my life become unsertin too.

   And I would like to tell that my x-boyfriend making many problem to my family and asking about me.  And I was unable to submit my document proof regarding my problem but I will try my best to obtain and submit as soon as to court.  This time I couldn’t obtain because of pandemic period in my country not only (COVID 19)  COVID 19 as a Christian because there are some ethnic problem too.  In my oral hearing I will explain.” [sic]

4.  Pursuant to the directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals under Practice Direction 2.1 and following the usual practice for an application of this kind, this application will be dealt with on paper without an oral hearing.

5.  In her written submissions received by the Court on 21 February 2022, the applicant essentially reiterated the above matters set out in her Notice of Motion, and also stated that in response to complaints about her ex-boyfriend made by her mother, the police never took any further action, and that she would explain further in an oral hearing.

6.  Having considered the materials available, we are satisfied that there is no reasonable prospect of success in the intended appeal or any question involved which, by reason of its great general or public importance, ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision, as required by section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484).  Nor do we see any reason why the applicant should, for some other reason, be allowed to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

7.  The Notice of Motion is therefore dismissed.