Re Binuloan Elissa Ricomes

CACV 80/2019

[2019] HKCA 1080

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 80 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 882 OF 2017)

_____________________

_____________________

Before: Hon Yeung VP, Pang JA and Lisa Wong J in Court

Date of Written Submissions:  25 June 2019

Date of Judgment:  11 October 2019

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.By a judgment dated 4 June 2019 ([2019] HKCA 615), the Court of Appeal (Yeung Ag CJHC (as he then was) and Lisa Wong J) dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the Judge”) dated 13 February 2019 in HCAL 882/2017 refusing to grant leave to her to apply for judicial review.

2.By a notice of motion dated 13 June 2019, the applicant now seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  

3.In the notice of motion, the applicant made a complaint that “the result is not reasonable”.

4.On 17 June 2019, the Registrar of Civil Appeals (“the Registrar”) directed that the applicant to lodge with the court her written submissions on or before 27 June 2019. 

5.The Registrar further directed that unless the court otherwise directs, the notice of motion shall be determined on paper only without an oral hearing.  As it is appropriate to do so, this application shall be determined on paper accordingly.

6.The applicant lodged her written submissions on 25 June 2019.  In her written submissions, she reiterated that she would be in grave danger if refouled and advanced 4 grounds of appeal:

“1.  The judgment dismissed my appeal because the judge believed that I was here for work rather than to seek non-refoulement claim. However, I came to Hong Kong to work because I wanted to run away from my husband’s abuse as well. This has been made clear during my hearing in the TCAB.

2.  The TCAB, however, believes that this is a personal reason. As a matter of fact, this should not be counted as personal. This is a form of gender-based violence. I came for work to run away and that’s why I would rather stay in Hong Kong than going back. I don’t know about the USM system before. It was later then I realized there is a system like this that can protect me.

3.  Police in Philippines believes that domestic violence is a private issue and therefore they turn a blind eye on anything like this happened at home. Therefore, even if I go back, I won’t be protected.

4.  The TCAB fails to look into my case based on the Filipino context.  It ignores the problems that happens in Philippines and only selectively quoting sources that fits their purpose.”

7.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.  This court has repeatedly stated that judicial review is not an avenue for revisiting the assessment of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) in the hope that the court may consider the matter afresh even in the absence of any legal error.  We also note that the applicant’s grounds of appeal against the Board were not raised nor canvassed at the lower court hearing and we would not entertain new arguments without leave and in any event, the grounds are without merit.  For the reason set out in [11] of our judgment, the applicant did not have reasonable arguable basis to challenge the Judge’s decision in rejecting her leave application.

8.For the reasons that we gave in our judgment of 4 June 2019, we did not see any prospect of success in the applicant’s intended appeal against the Judge’s order.  None of the questions raised by the applicant in the notice of motion and her written submissions involved an arguable point or a question of great general or public importance.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave under the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).  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.

9.Accordingly, we refuse to give the applicant leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and dismiss her notice of motion.

The applicant, unrepresented, acted in person.