Re Bansiles Jamaicha Baguindo

CACV 98/2018

[2018] HKCA 838

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 98 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 871 of 2017)

________________________

________________________

Before: Hon Cheung, Chu and Barma JJA in Court

Date of Judgment: 3 December 2018

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

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

1.On 27 September 2018, this Court (Chu and Barma JJA) handed down our judgment (“the Judgment”) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the Judge”) given on 29 March 2018 refusing her leave to apply for judicial review.  

2.By a Notice of Motion dated 3 October 2018, the applicant applied for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.

3.In accordance with paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1 Application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal filed in the court of Appeal in Civil Cases, we have processed the present application on paper.

4.Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484, 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.

5.The Notice of Motion did not set out any question for determination by the Court of Final Appeal.  It made the following complaints about the determination of the applicant’s non-refoulement claim:

(1) The decision maker just relied on country of origin information (“COI”) and the applicant’s previous facts.  The actual situation is, however, different. 

(2) Overwhelming evidence of violence against minorities had been ignored.

(3) The decision betrayed a biased and formulaic approach calculated to reject the claim.  There was no fair assessment of the danger to the applicant’s life.  

6.Pursuant to the direction of the Registrar of Civil Appeals, the applicant had lodged a written submission on 16 October 2018.  The written submission is in substance an account of the applicant’s case for seeking non-refoulement protection.

7.All the matters stated in the Notice of Motion and the written submission relate only to the applicant’s claim and her personal circumstances.  No question of great general or public importance is involved.

8.Further, the matters advanced are unarguable.  Firstly, as pointed out in [12] of the Judgment, the Board had not considered any COI, and the Director’s assessment of the COI is of no relevance in view of the Board’s findings.  Secondly, there is in the applicant’s claim no issue of violence against minorities.  Thirdly, for the reason given in [10] of the Judgement, the complaint on the assessment of risk cannot stand.      

9.There is also no other reason for submitting the proposed appeal to the Court of Final Appeal for decision

10.As the condition for giving leave to appeal is not met, we dismiss the Notice of Motion.

The applicant, unpresented, acted in person.