PANDURO JEAN MOSQUEDA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 516/2021

[2022] HKCA 616

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 516 OF 2021

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 668 OF 2019)

________________________

_____________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

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

1.  On 2 March 2022, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the order made by Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung on 9 November 2021 refusing leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review.

2.  The Applicant now applies by Notice of Motion dated 12 April 2022 for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the following is stated:

“I … filed for the appeal over my case and the situation in the Philippines that constitute of an error judgment. I will be in grave danger if I should return to Philippines and yet the TCAB overlooked or was misguided to believe that Philippines, like Hong Kong will actually practice the rule of law when in actual fact, cannot protect me.

I believe that my possible loss of life should is a myth when I returned back home.

As a result, I request the court to grant leave to appeal.”

3.  In her written submissions dated 26 April 2022, the Applicant repeats her claimed fear upon return to the Philippines, and refers to some country of origin information to support her claim that she would be killed or harmed if she returns to the Philippines. She also alleges that the possibility of relocation in the Philippines is a myth.

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, inter alia, the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal 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.