Re Kasirah

CAMP 268/2019

[2020] HKCA 771

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 268 OF 2019

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 599 OF 2017)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.By a judgment dated 18 June 2020 ([2020] HKCA 468), this Court (Yeung VP and Chu JA) dismissed the applicant’s application for an extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Woodcock (“the Judge”) given on 25 June 2018 in HCAL 599/2017 refusing her application for leave to apply for judicial review. The applicant sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) given on 4 August 2017 dismissing her petition/appeal from the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) given on 31 October 2016 rejecting her non-refoulement claim.

2.By a notice of motion dated 26 June 2020, the applicant now seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on the grounds that:

(1)  The judges were wrong as a matter of law for failing to apply the principle of irrationality to the decisions made by the Director and the Board.

(2)  The judges were wrong as a matter of law for failing to apply the principle of procedural unfairness to the decisions of the Director and the Board which required them to give reasons justifying their decisions made.

(3)  The applicant would face hardship if she were to return to her home country and the Board had significantly relied on the source of news which is not sufficiently recognized or is simply hearsay.

3.Pursuant to the directions made by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 26 June 2020, the applicant should lodge with the court her written submissions in support of the notice of motion on or before 10 July 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.The grounds of appeal as set out in the notice of motion are vague and general accusations and none of them had pinpointed any error of law or other valid ground to challenge or reverse our judgment. Further, as set out at [7] of our judgment, the Board had provided detailed reasons in dismissing the applicant’s case and in gist, her case was premised on domestic violence without any state involvement and she had failed to establish her case on all applicable grounds. There is simply no merit in the applicant’s case.

7.For the reasons that we gave in our judgment of 18 June 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.