Re Suparti
Read the full judgment text of CACV 18/2019 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 12 June 2019.
1. On 2 May 2019, this court (Barma JA and G Lam J) dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan on 11 January 2019 refusing leave for the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dismissing her appeal from the decisions of the Director of Immigration rejecting her non‑refoulement claim.
Cited by 1 case
|
CACV 18/2019 [2019] HKCA 641 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO 18 OF 2019 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 223 OF 2018) _________________
_________________ Before: Hon Barma, Au JJA and G Lam J in Court Date of Written Submissions: 20 May 2019 Date of Decision: 12 June 2019 _________________ D E C I S I O N _________________ Hon G Lam J (giving the Judgment of the Court): 1.On 2 May 2019, this court (Barma JA and G Lam J) dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan on 11 January 2019 refusing leave for the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dismissing her appeal from the decisions of the Director of Immigration rejecting her non‑refoulement claim. 2.The applicant subsequently applied, by Notice of Motion dated 6 May 2019, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant stated in the notice of motion that:
3.In compliance with the directions of the court, the applicant lodged a written submission in support of the application on 20 May 2019. In the written submission, the applicant explained why it is not safe for her to return. We see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on paper. 4.In our view, the matters stated by the applicant in the Notice of Motion and written submission 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, as required by 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. We have dealt with the issue regarding the alleged danger upon her return at [14] of our judgment. The applicant has failed to identify any error in our judgment. There is no reasonably arguable issue for decision by the Court of Final Appeal. 5.We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b). 6.For these reasons, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.
The applicant acting in person |
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under CACV 18/2019