Rini Agustina v. Torture Claims Appeal Board /Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office and Another

CACV 473/2019

[2021] HKCA 519

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 473 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1000 OF 2018)

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

Before:  Hon Chu, Au JJA and S T Poon J in Court

Date of Written Submissions:  9 June 2020

Date of Judgment:  3 June 2021

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon S T Poon J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.On 26 May 2020, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against this Court’s judgment of 21 May 2020 (“the Judgment”). In the Judgment, this Court (Au JA and S T Poon J) dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan dated 25 September 2019 dismissing her application for leave to apply for judicial review.

2.The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as the Court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in the Judgment.  We will not repeat them here.  After reviewing the Notice of Motion, pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, we see no reason to deviate from the usual practice and proceed to consider this application without an oral hearing.

3.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.

4.In her Notice of Motion, the applicant raised the following grounds of appeal:

(1)  the appellant judges did not consider that the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) failed to adhere to high standard of fairness;

(2)  the court failed to consider the country of origin information that the authorities in his home country were unable to protect her; and that

(3)  the court failed to give proper reasons why he failed in the assessment of BOR3 risk. 

5.In her skeleton submissions of 9 June 2020 filed pursuant to the Court’s directions, the applicant submitted that the Board and the Director of Immigration failed to comply with their duties to inquire into the country of origin information and that they failed to take into account relevant considerations or took into account irrelevant considerations. However, she did not advance any grounds against the Judgment. 

6.In our view, the applicant’s application is without merit.  The matters raised in the Notice of Motion and written submissions are those advanced but rejected by us at [20]-[22] of the Judgment and she failed to pinpoint any specific error in our reasons. 

7.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.  The statutory requirements under section 22 are plainly not met.

8.For these reasons, we refuse to grant leave to appeal to the CFA, and dismiss the applicant’s Notice of Motion.

The applicant acting in person