Re Azofa

CACV 475/2019

[2020] HKCA 765

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 475 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 783 OF 2018)

_____________________

_____________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.By a judgment dated 27 May 2020 ([2020] HKCA 376), this Court (Yeung VP, Chu and Pang JJA) refused to grant leave to the applicant to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the Judge”) given on 27 September 2019 in HCAL 783/2018 refusing to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) given on 12 April 2018 dismissing her petition/appeal from the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) given on 30 June 2017 rejecting her non-refoulement claim on all applicable grounds.

2.By a notice of motion dated 8 June 2020, the applicant now seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on the grounds that:

“- The claims that the Judgment has made stated is no substance in the grounds of the application is not true.

- On the strength of the grounds not made complain about the poor performance of his duty lawyer is due to fearing (sic) he will be picked out for misappropriating by the adjudicator.

- The applicant gently did not have enough time to address the bundle.

- Rest of the grounds I will submit as soon as possible.” 

3.Pursuant to the directions made by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 9 June 2020, the applicant should lodge with the court her written submissions in support of the notice of motion on or before 22 June 2020.  The applicant failed to do so.

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

5.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.

6.In our view, nothing set out in the notice of motion can constitute as valid ground of appeal as none of them pinpoints any error of law or other valid grounds for disturbing our judgment.  As stated at [10] of our judgment, the applicant’s case only premised on domestic violence without any state or political involvement and her case was rejected on the issue of credibility by the Board.  We simply cannot see any prospect of success in her intended application for judicial review.

7.For the reasons that we gave in our judgment of 27 May 2020, we do not see any prospect of success in the applicant’s intended appeal against the Judge’s decision and order.  None of the questions raised by the applicant in the notice of motion involves an arguable point or a question of great general or public importance.  We do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b) either.  The statutory criteria for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is not met.

8.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