Khatun Asma and Another v. S.J. Geiser, Esq., Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non Refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 494/2018

[2019] HKCA 596

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 494 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 34 OF 2018)

_______________

_______________

____________________

J U D G M E N T

____________________

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

1.By a judgment dated 5 March 2019 ([2019] HKCA 258), the Court of Appeal (Chu, Barma and Poon JJA) dismissed the 1^st and 2^nd applicants’ appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan dated 21 September 2018 refusing to grant leave to them to apply for judicial review.  By a notice of motion dated 28 March 2019, the 1^st and 2^nd applicants now seek leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

2.In the notice of motion, the 1^st and 2^nd applicants set out the following ground :

“ I would like to infomr (sic) the Honourable Court that there is some error in law in my decision. Decision maker just relied on COL Information and my previous facts which were in favour while rejecting my claim. Acual (sic) life occur different situation then what is mentioned in COL Information. The Officer and cours (sic) prefers to ignore the overwhelming of the evidence of this violence towards minorities searching for unrealistic silver lining. The Decision is betrary (sic) a bias and formula approach unlikely fairly access the danger of my life and clearly not reasonable.”

3.In compliance with the direction given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 29 March 2019, the 1^st and 2^nd applicants lodged their written submissions on 10 April 2019.  In their written submissions, the 1^st and 2^nd applicants mentioned some authorities and legal propositions in relation to non-refoulement protection claim without explaining how they can assist their case.

4.We have duly considered the 1^st and 2^nd applicants’ notice of motion and their written submissions.  Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, this application is processed on papers without any oral hearing.

5.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.  For the reasons that we gave in our judgment, we do not see any prospect of success in the 1^st and 2^nd applicants’ intended appeal against the Judge’s order.  None of the questions raised by the 1^st and 2^nd applicants in the notice of motion or in their written submissions involve any question of great general or public importance or is one that ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision. The statutory criteria for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) are not met.

6.Accordingly, we refuse to give the 1^st and 2^nd applicants leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and dismiss their notice of motion.

The applicant, unrepresented, acting in person