|
CACV 258/2021
[2023] HKCA 209
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 258 OF 2021
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1499 OF 2018)
________________________
| RE: |
NURINA-AGUSTIN ALIAS AGUSTIN
NURINA ALIAS NURINA AGUSTIN |
Applicant |
________________________
| Before: |
Hon Yuen and Chow JJA in Court |
| Date of Written Submissions: |
4 July 2022 |
| Date of Judgment: |
23 February 2023 |
________________________
J U D G M E N T
________________________
Hon Yuen JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. This court handed down judgment on 27 May 2022 ([2022] HKCA 723) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against an order of DHCJ Bruno Chan given on 7 May 2021 refusing to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review in respect of her non-refoulement claim.
2. The facts and issues in the appeal before this court, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment and will not be repeated here.
3. On 20 June 2022, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion for leave to appeal this court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.
4. The Notice of Motion stated the following as a ground of appeal:
“Director of Immigration and Torture Claims Appeal Board rejected my claim for non-refoulement. The High Court and the Court of Appeal dismissed my application for leave. I am not totally satisfied. I want to go to the Court of Final Appeal.”
5. In compliance with the directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals made on 20 June 2022, the applicant lodged her written submissions on 4 July 2022. As it is appropriate to do so, the Notice of Motion is determined on paper without an oral hearing.
6. In her written submissions, she reiterated the background of her case and repeated her statement in the Notice of Motion.
7. Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (“HKCFAO”) (Cap. 484) provides that leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal may be granted if 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.
8. Having regard to this court’s judgment, the applicant’s intended appeal has no merit at all. No question of great general or public importance has been identified as required by section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.
9. Nor do we see any basis for granting leave under the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).
10. By reason of the above, the Notice of Motion filed on 20 June 2022 is dismissed.
| (Maria Yuen) |
(Anderson Chow) |
| Justice of Appeal |
Justice of Appeal |
The applicant, unrepresented, acting in person
|