Re Sukenih

CACV 556/2019

[2020] HKCA 551

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 556 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 2501/2018)

_______________________________

_______________________________

Before:  Hon Lam VP, Barma JA and S T Poon J in Court

Date of Written Submissions:  15 June 2020

Date of Judgment:  10 July 2020

________________________

JUDGMENT

________________________

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

Introduction

1.On 1 June 2020, the Applicant applied by her Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against the judgment of 25 May 2020 of the Court (Lam VP and S T Poon J).  In that judgment we dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung on 21 November 2019 refusing leave to apply for judicial review. 

2.Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484 provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”) at the discretion of this Court or the CFA 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 CFA for decision.

3.The Applicant set out the following grounds for leave to appeal in her Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the CFA:

“ 1. In the Judgement of my Notice of Appeal, the Appeallet Judges gave decision that my Appeal has dismissed because there are no merit in my Appeal. It is true that my claim is not a political dispute, but its a life threat against me by the enemies for which I am fear to return back to my country. In my Decision the TCAB and the Director failed to assessed my fears properly.

2. Failed to observed country of origin conditions and consider my claim under BOR 3 risk.” [sic]

4.In the written submissions of 15 June 2020 in support of the motion, the Applicant largely reiterated the same arguments in her previous written submissions on appeal to this Court.  She also reiterated her point that her claim was based on the true story of her life.

5.Neither the Board nor the courts decided against the Applicant simply because her claim is not a political dispute.  The Board had carefully assessed the risk of harm, availability of state protection and viability of internal relocation.  The Applicant did not have any valid ground for challenging such assessment.

6.The matters raised in the Notice of Motion do not give rise to any questions of great general or public importance or other grounds for submitting the matter to the CFA for decision.

7.For these reasons, we refuse to grant leave to appeal to the CFA. We dismiss the Applicant’s Notice of Motion.

The applicant acting in person