Re Ana Irmawati

CACV 518/2020

[2021] HKCA 1052

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 518 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 864 OF 2018)

_________________________

_________________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.By a judgment dated 10 May 2021 ([2021] HKCA 647) (“the Judgment”), this Court (Yeung VP and Lisa Wong J) dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge C P Pang (“the Judge”) given on 14 September 2020 in HCAL 864/2018 refusing to grant her leave to apply for judicial review. The applicant sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) given on 9 March 2018 in which the Board confirmed the decision made by the Director of Immigration given on 30 October 2017 rejecting her non-refoulement claim.

2.By a notice of motion dated 20 May 2021, the applicant now seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on the grounds that:

“I would like to challenge the TCAB and subsequently the court’s decision on my case. First, the court’s reasserted that ‘due to the seriousness of the case at hand, it should not usurp the role of TCAB’. However, the Board, when assessing the case, proved ineffective and ultimate erroneous because they do not understand the situation in the local context and the process without properly carried out, is already committing procedural error.”

3.In compliance with the directions made by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 24 May 2021, the applicant lodged her written submissions on 3 June 2021.  For the present application, the applicant adopted all of her written submissions dated 1 April 2021 in support of her appeal before this court[1].

4.The Registrar further directed that unless the court otherwise directs, the notice of motion shall be determined on the papers only.  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.Here, the applicant merely tried to regurgitate the arguments canvassed and rejected by this Court and she failed to raise any discernible grounds to disturb the Judgment.  Nothing set out in the notice of motion and her written submissions can be construed as valid ground of appeal to Court of Final Appeal.

7.For the reasons that we gave in the Judgment, 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 her 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.

[1] Her written submissions were duly set out at [8] of the Judgment.