Re Villa Erlinda Balido

CACV 237 /2018

[2018] HKCA 898

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 237 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 922/2017)

-----------------------------------

-----------------------------------

Before: Hon Lam VP, Barma JA and McWalters JA in Court

Date of Handing Down Judgment: 30 November 2018

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.On 26 September 2018, this court (Lam VP and Barma JA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the judge”) on 8 June 2018 refusing leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dismissing her appeal from the decisions of the Director of Immigration rejecting her non‑refoulement claim.

2.The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment.[1]  We will not repeat them here.

3.The applicant subsequently applied, by a notice of motion dated 8 October 2018, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant stated in her notice of motion that the decision makers which appears to have been a reference to the Director, Board and court, made a number of mistakes in arriving at their decisions by relying on COI and facts unfavourable to the applicant, ignoring matters favourable to her, and adopting a formulaic approach.

4.In compliance with the directions of the court, the applicant lodged a written submission in support of her application on 22 October 2018.  The submission contained a recitation of facts in support of her non-refoulement claim. 

5.Having considered the applicant’s notice of motion and written submission, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on the papers.  We have, therefore, determined the applicant’s application on the basis of her notice of motion and written submission.

6.The notice of motion and the submission did not identify any ground to support an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The matters stated by the applicant in her notice of motion do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine in accordance with section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484.  Nor is any such question apparent to us from the matters she has raised in her notice of motion and her written submission.  

7.We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

8.For these reasons, the notice of motion dated 8 October 2018 is dismissed.

The applicant acting in person