Re Nurwati

CACV 517/2020

[2021] HKCA 1103

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 517 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 617 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.By a judgment dated 24 May 2021 ([2021] HKCA 671), this Court (Yeung VP and Pang JA) dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the Judge”) given on 12 August 2020 in HCAL 617/2018 refusing to grant her leave to apply for judicial review. The applicant sought to review the decisions of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) given on 11 April 2017 and 27 March 2018 in which the Board confirmed the decisions of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) given on 12 February 2016 and 4 May 2017 rejecting her non-refoulement claim.

2.By a notice of motion dated 28 May 2021, the applicant seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on the following grounds:

“All the processes from immigration to the Court of Appeal (Director of Immigration Torture Claims Appeal Board The High Court and the Court of Appeal) I do not satisfy. I want to go to the Court of Final Appeal. Give me permission to go.”

3.Pursuant to the directions made by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 1 June 2021 and Practice Direction 2.1, the applicant should lodge her written submissions on or before 11 June 2021.  She failed to do so.  Non-compliance with the Directions by the applicant will be considered as an abandonment of her right to rely on written submissions.

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.The grounds of appeal set out in the notice of motion did not pinpoint any error or raise any discernible grounds to disturb our judgment and nothing set out in the notice of motion can be construed as valid ground of appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  Accordingly, the intended appeal is unarguable and bound to fail.

7.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 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.