RE MERINO NATIVIDAD DANGBIS

CACV 161/2020

[2021] HKCA 27

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 161 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 555/2019)

________________________

________________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.  On 16 November 2020, the Applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against this Court’s judgment of 5 November 2020. In that judgment we dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung on 3 June 2020 dismissing her application for leave to apply for judicial review.

2.  Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484 provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”) at the discretion of this Court or the CFA 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 CFA for decision.

3.  In her Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the CFA, the Applicant raised the following matters in support of her application :

(1)  the court failed to realize she could not return to her country of origin and her fear that her enemies would be a great risk to her;

(2)  there was a failure to consider her claim under torture risk and BOR 3 risk;

(3)  there was a failure to consider country of origin information (COI).

4.  These grounds were already raised in her previous Notice of Appeal to this Court and her previous written submissions on appeal, which we had already considered in our judgment of 5 November 2020.

5.  Pursuant to the Court’s directions of 18 November 2020, the Applicant lodged her written submissions in support on 27 November 2020.  In those submissions she largely reiterated the same arguments in her previous written submissions on appeal to this Court. She also submitted that her claim was based on the true story of her life.

6.  The Applicant has not raised any reasonably arguable ground of appeal on the merit of her claim, or any discernible or arguable ground for disturbing our judgment.  The matters raised in her Notice of Motion and her written submissions do not identify any specific error in our judgment or the judgment of the court below.

7.  In any event, in the circumstances, we do not consider that there is any question of great general or public importance or which otherwise ought to be submitted to the CFA for determination.

8.  For these reasons, we refuse to grant leave to appeal to the CFA, and dismiss the Applicant’s Notice of Motion.