Re Tina Kurniasih

CACV 360/2020

[2021] HKCA 766

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 360 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 475 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.By a judgment dated 1 March 2021 ([2021] HKCA 203), this Court (Yeung VP and B Chu J) dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of DHCJ Bruno Chan (“the Judge”) given on 3 August 2020 in HCAL 475/2018 refusing to grant her leave to apply for judicial review. The applicant sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Adjudicator of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) given on 19 March 2018 dismissing her petition/appeal from the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) given on 15 March 2017 rejecting her non-refoulement claim.

2.By a Notice of Motion dated 19 March 2021, the applicant seeks leave to appeal this court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal on the following grounds:

“I would like to inform Court of Final Appeal. There is some error in law in my decision maker just relied on col information and my pervious facts which were favour on reject my claim. Actual life occur different situation then mentioned col information. Officer and court prefers to ignore the overwhelming of the evidence of the violence toward a bias and formula approach unlikely fairly access the danger of my life and clearly calculate to reject my claim.”

3.Pursuant to the directions made by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 22 March 2021, the applicant lodged her written submissions on 7 April 2021.  In her written submissions, she advanced the following grounds:

(1)  She disagrees with the decisions made by the Director of Immigration (“the Director) and the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office as they were not determined fairly.

(2)  It is unfair that the High Court Judges never heard her in person.

(3)  There was a lack of legal and language assistance for her claim on BOR 2 risk^[1] as opposed to her claims on other applicable grounds and she believed such assistance was essential.

(4)  She should be entitled to legal assistance and representation as the high standard of fairness required she should be legally represented for the assessment before the Director.

(5)  All acts of the authorities were highly discriminatory and unfair to her.

(6)  She is afraid of going back to her home country as her creditor is a very powerful person.

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 the 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.Here, the applicant failed to pinpoint any error of law or raised any discernible ground to reverse our judgment and her intended appeal is bound to fail.  She merely regurgitated her complaints on the lack of legal and language assistance which was duly considered and rejected by this court as set out at [12] of our judgment.  We take the view that the applicant’s case has no merit and nothing set out in the Notice of Motion and the written submissions can be construed as valid ground of appeal to Court of Final Appeal. 

7.For the reasons that we gave in our judgment of 1 March 2021, 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 and the written submissions 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.