RE WIJESIRI GUNAWARDANA NANDANIE

CACV 202/2021

[2021] HKCA 1917

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 202 OF 2021

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1053 OF 2018)

____________

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

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

1.  The applicant is a Sri Lankan 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 Bruno Chan,[1] and her appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court on 14 September 2021.[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 15 September 2021, leave to appeal further to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the applicant stated:

“ I would like to tell that my notice of appeal was rejected by high court and I cannot say any error in this decision because I was unable to submit my any document to you. But still I have problem from my x husband he was tortured me many time, even I was separate with him he make many harm to me. I am scared to go untill he die. Otherwise my life become danger. Sometime he use to ask money from me if I not give he use to beat me many time in my life therefore I am seeking protection.”

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

5.  In her written submissions of 23 September 2021, the applicant reiterated the factual basis of her claim and that she needed more time to obtain documents from Sri Lanka, as she was unable to contact her friend there and also in light of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

6.  Having considered the materials available, we are satisfied that there is no reasonable prospect 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.