Re Manjit Kaur

CACV 55/2018

[2018] HKCA 407

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 55 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 643 OF 2017)

__________________________

__________________________

Before: Hon Lam VP, Yuen and Barma JJA in Court

Date of Written Submissions: 1 June 2018

Date of Judgment: 20 July 2018

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

Hon Lam VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.This Court (Lam VP and Yuen JA) handed down judgment on 4 May 2018 dismissing the appeal.

2.On 21 May 2018, the applicant issued a Notice of Motion seeking leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  

3.Pursuant to Practice Direction 2.1, the applicant lodged submissions (written in English) in support of his application on 1 June 2018.

4.The applicant reiterated that she could not go back to her own country. She alleged that her enemies were strong and she is helpless. She alleged that the police, political leaders and the other authorities in the country acted for her enemies. She alleged that people were subject to torture in her country. She asked to be allowed to stay in Hong Kong.   

5.Having read her written submissions and Notice of Motion, we are of the view that the Notice of Motion can be processed on the papers without any oral hearing.

6.The relevant criteria for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal are set out in Section 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 the Court of Appeal or the Court [of Final Appeal], from any judgment of the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter, whether final or interlocutory, if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal or the Court [of Final Appeal], as the case may be, 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.”

7.Having read the documents, we cannot find any basis for holding that leave to appeal should be granted pursuant to Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance. The allegations of the applicant were bare assertions. This Court upheld the determination of the judge below that there is no merit in her application for judicial review against assessment of the Board. The Board, in the decision of 23 June 2017, concluded that there is no real risk of torture or serious harm or ill-treatment or violation of her right to life under BOR 2 and 3. The Board also concluded that state protection is available.

8.The applicant has not raised any question of great general or public importance in the intended appeal.  Nor is there any reason for leave to be granted on the “otherwise” limb.

9.The Notice of Motion of 21 May 2018 is dismissed.

The applicant acting in person