Siti Jumaiyah v. Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office and Another

CACV 465 /2019

[2020] HKCA 606

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 465 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2562 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.This is the applicant’s Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal (Kwan VP and Yuen JA) handed down on 9 June 2020 ([2020] HKCA 439). The Court of Appeal dismissed her appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung on 19 September 2019 ([2019] HKCFI 2271) refusing leave to apply for judicial review concerning her non-refoulement claim.

2.Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, the Registrar of Civil Appeals had directed on 22 June 2020 that the Notice of Motion shall be determined on paper only without an oral hearing.  The applicant lodged her written submission on 2 July 2020.  Having considered her submission, we consider it appropriate to determine this application on paper.

3.By a Notice of Decision dated 26 June 2017, the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) rejected the applicant’s claim.

4.The applicant appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board(“the Board”) against the Director’s decision and her appeal was dismissed by the Board on 15 October 2018.

5.She filed a Form 86 on 14 November 2018 to seek leave to apply for judicial review against the decisions of the Director and the Board.  Her application was refused by Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung on 19 September 2019.

6.The applicant filed a Notice of Appeal against the decision of the judge on 3 October 2019.  The appeal was scheduled to be heard by the Court of Appeal on 10 March 2020 but was adjourned to 26 May 2020 due to the general adjournment of the court proceedings for public health reasons.  The adjourned hearing was vacated as the applicant failed to lodge her skeleton argument by the time prescribed under the order made by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 7 November 2019 as extended by the direction of Kwan VP on 17 April 2020.  The appeal was dealt with on paper.  It was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 9 June 2020.  The applicant filed a Notice of Motion on 18 June 2020 for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

7.In the Notice of Motion, the applicant stated that she did not find any cause of refusal in the judgment of the Court of Appeal and she does not agree with the judgment so she wants to go to the Court of Final Appeal.

8.She further submitted in writing that she has life threatening enemies in Indonesia who will kill her without hesitation if they find her and they can influence the whole society to act against her.  She contended that she is a poor girl with no power and no helper so it is impossible for her to survive.

9.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 at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, from any judgment of the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter, whether final or interlocutory, if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, as the case may be, 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.

10.The applicant’s grounds of appeal and submissions are bare assertions without evidence in support.  They do not constitute valid grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  Contrary to her submission, the Court of Appeal has already explained the reasons for the dismissal of her appeal in the judgment.  She has not demonstrated any reasonably arguable basis that the Court of Appeal was wrong in dismissing her appeal and she has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance which ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for determination in accordance with section 22(1)(b).  There is also no basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).

11.We therefore dismiss the application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

The Applicant, acting in person