Re Paglingayen Rosalyn Ringor and Another
Read the full judgment text of CACV 316/2019 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 1 February 2021 before Lam VP, Yuen JA, Chu JA.
Civil procedure – leave to appeal to Court of Final Appeal – judicial review – non-refoulement / torture claims – mixed race minor – whether question of great general or public importance – Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484, s.22(1)(b) – Applicants acting in person – mother's fear of returning to the Philippines and risk of discrimination to her minor daughter of mixed race born out of wedlock – Board's assessment of daughter's claim separately from mother's claim – risk of discrimination, potential statelessness, and risk posed by mother's husband considered – Fabio Arlyn Timogan v Evan Ruth, Esq, Adjudicator of the Torture Claims Appeal Board, [2020] HKCA 971 applied – Court of Appeal's earlier judgment in CACV 316/2019 dismissed appeal against Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan's dismissal of leave to apply for judicial review – Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to CFA filed out of time – no specific grounds or errors identified – no reasonably arguable ground of appeal on the merits – no question of great general or public importance raised – leave to appeal to CFA refused – Notice of Motion dismissed.
Legal issues: Whether leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal should be granted under s.22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance
Outcome: Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal refused; the Applicants' Notice of Motion dismissed.
Cited by 20 cases · Cites 3 cases
|
CACV 316/2019 [2021] HKCA 84 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO 316 OF 2019 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 870/2017) ____________________
____________________
________________________ JUDGMENT ________________________ Hon Lam VP (giving the Judgment of the Court): 1.On 23 June 2020, the 1st Applicant on behalf of the 2nd Applicant and herself filed a Notice of Motion, out of time, to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against this Court’s judgment of 27 December 2019. In that judgment we dismissed the Applicants’ appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan on 28 June 2019 dismissing their application for 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.In the Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the CFA, the Applicants did not raise any specific grounds for leave to appeal. 4.Pursuant to the Court’s directions of 24 June 2020, the 1st Applicant lodged written submissions in support on 8 July 2020 for herself and the 2nd Applicant, who is her daughter and is a minor. In those submissions, the 1st Applicant stated that she and her daughter are afraid to return to the Philippines because their lives are in danger and discrimination against her daughter. 5.On 27 November 2020, another division of this Court (Lam VP, Barma and Au JJA) handed down the judgment in Fabio Arlyn Timogan v Evan Ruth, Esq, Adjudicator of the Torture Claims Appeal Board, [2020] HKCA 971, CACV 32/2020. 6.In our view, that judgment cannot avail the Applicants in the present case. It is clear from the Board’s decision of 13 October 2017 that the Board assessed the 2nd Applicant’s claim separately from the 1st Applicant’s claim[1]. In particular, the Board specifically considered the risk of discrimination to the 2nd Applicant in the event of refoulement due to her being of mixed race and born out of wedlock. The Board also considered the 2nd Applicant’s potential statelessness as well as the specific risk that the 1st Applicant’s husband might pose to the 2nd Applicant. 7.In our view, the Board had properly assessed the 2nd Applicant’s claim and duly given reasons for rejecting the 2nd Applicant’s claim. There is nothing to indicate that the merits of the 2nd Applicant’s claim were not fully or adequately explored before the Board due to lack of legal representation such that the high standards of fairness were not met. 8.On this application for leave to appeal to the CFA, the Applicants have not raised any reasonably arguable ground of appeal on the merit of their claims, or any discernible or arguable ground for disturbing our judgment. The matters raised in the Notice of Motion and written submissions fail to pinpoint any specific error in our judgment or the judgment of the court below. 9.In the circumstances, we do not consider that there is any question of great general or public importance or which otherwise ought to be submitted to the CFA for determination. 10.For these reasons, we refuse to grant leave to appeal to the CFA, and dismiss the Applicant’s Notice of Motion.
The 1st and 2nd applicants acting in person [1] See paragraphs 25 to 28 of the Board’s decision. |
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under CACV 316/2019