Limos Gina Tudayan v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office and Another

CACV 187/2019

[2019] HKCA 1120

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 187 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 476 OF 2018)

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

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

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.This court handed down judgment on 6 August 2019 ([2019] HKCA 870) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against an order of DHCJ Bruno Chan given on 12 April 2019 refusing her application for leave to apply for judicial review concerning her non‑refoulement claim. The facts and issues in the appeal before the Court of Appeal, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment and will not be repeated here.

2.The applicant filed a Notice of Motion on 12 August 2019 for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and lodged her written submissions on 26 August 2019.

3.Pursuant to Practice Direction 2.1, the Registrar of Civil Appeals had directed on 14 August 2019 that the Notice of Motion shall be determined on paper only without an oral hearing.  We agree it is appropriate to determine this application on paper.

4.In the Notice of Motion, the applicant stated as follows:

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

5.In the applicant’s written submissions, she stressed that high standards of fairness and reasonableness are required in the determination of her right to non-refoulement protection because the decision has a significant effect on her non‑refoulement claim.  The applicant submitted that the adjudicator acted in a procedurally unfair manner in dealing with her application without properly assessing her credibility.  She also referred to various case authorities and argued that an unreasonable decision should be set aside. 

6.The applicant’s grounds and submissions are broad and vague.  Insofar as she seeks to re-argue factual decisions, this approach had been rejected by this court in our judgment.

7.Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) provides that leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal may be granted at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal if the question involves great general or public importance or otherwise ought to be determined by the Court of Final Appeal.

8.No question of great general or public importance has been identified in the grounds in the Notice of Motion.

9.Nor do we see any basis for granting leave on the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

10.By virtue of the above, the Notice of Motion dated 12 August 2019 is dismissed.

The applicant, unrepresented, acting in person