Re Titin Anita Nurjanah Alias Nurjanah Titin Anita Alias Titin Anita Nurjanah

CACV 458/2020

[2021] HKCA 1092

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 458 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 652 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 646), this Court (Yeung VP and Lisa Wong J) dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the Judge”) given on 31 August 2020 in HCAL 652/2018 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 4 April 2018 in which the Board confirmed the decision made by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) given on 26 May 2017 rejecting her non-refoulement claim.

2.By a notice of motion dated 8 June 2021, the applicant seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on the following grounds:

“I would like to inform to Court of Final Appeal. There are some law error in my decision maker. I am totally disagree with the decision maker authorities. The authorities were totally relied on news and web information which is not actually not in real life. My life still in danger because its towards to my life. So I do not want to go back to my home land in Indonesia.”

3.In compliance with the directions made by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 8 June 2021 and Practice Direction 2.1, the applicant lodged her written submissions on 22 June 2021.   In the applicant’s written submissions, she advanced the following grounds:

(1)  She disagrees with the decisions made by the Director and the Board as they were not determined fairly.

(2)  She did not understand the decisions and judgment made in her case and there is no assistance on that.

(3)  She was deprived of the right to make full ground of appeal.  She did not understand the determination and had to submit everything in English but not in her own language and it was unfair to her. 

(4)  Owing to her language incapacity, the Judges cannot dismiss her case on the basis of not including any draft grounds of appeal.

(5)  The court did not provide any language assistance to her and it was procedural unfairness and thus her case should be reconsidered.

(6)  The Board and the Director did not carefully and thoroughly assess her case and it was untrue that state protection was available in Indonesia.  The fact that she had attempted to report to police but in vain was clear indication that corruption remained serious in Indonesia and the authorities were ineffective.

(7)  The discriminating act of the authorities towards non-refoulement claimant is unacceptable and detrimental to the spirit of the judicial system.

4.The Registrar further directed that unless the court otherwise directs, the notice of motion shall be determined on 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.In our judgment, the grounds of complaints as set out in the notice of motion and written submissions were vague and general without proper basis or support.  The applicant did not pinpoint any error or raise any discernible grounds of appeal to reverse our judgment and her intended appeal is bound to fail.  

7.Regarding the applicant’s complaint on the lack of language assistance, it was canvassed and duly rejected by this court at [11] of our judgment.  Further, her case was dismissed by the Board on the basis that she failed to show a real and substantial risk that she would face any real risk of harm by her husband or the loan shark and her problem was domestic and merely involved personal monetary disputes with no state or official involvement.  We found no basis to intervene in the Board’s decision which was well justified.

8.For the reasons that we gave in our 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.

9.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.