Re Kabir Tania

CACV492/2020

[2021] HKCA 1515

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 492 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 973/2018)

-----------------------------------

Before: Hon Barma JA and ST Poon J in Court

Date of Judgment: 29 October 2021

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

Hon Barma JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.On 7 May 2021, this court (Barma JA and ST Poon J) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the judge”) on 7 September 2020 refusing leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dismissing her appeal from the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting her non‑refoulement claim.

2.The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment.[1]  We will not repeat them here.

3.The applicant subsequently applied, by a Notice of Motion filed on 17 May 2021, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant stated in the Notice of Motion that:

“… with due respect and humble submissions, I beg to you that I couldn’t accept the decision which was made on 07 May 2021 by Judge, because there are some incorrect informations which are used by the court to make this decision. Decision maker relied just a simple hearsay. The Judges did not verify all the matters which I gave to the court in previous time. This decision make me irrational of my life and disappointed me about my life security. This decision was unfair and reflected my claim. The other grounds are written on Annex-A.”

4.In Annex-A attached to the Notice of Motion, the applicant stated that:

(1)  the judges “reviewed the matter lightly” and failed to meet the high standard of fairness;

(2)  the judges failed to apply the principle of irrationality to the decisions by the Board and the Director;

(3)  the judges “may not analyzed the applicant’s claim properly in her home country”; and

(4)  the judges’ decision was unreasonable.

5.The applicant lodged a written submission in support of the application on 28 May 2021.  In the written submission, the applicant reiterated the matters raised in the Notice of Motion and explained why she considered it unsafe for her to return.

6.Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion and written submission, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on the papers.  We have, therefore, determined the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents filed.

7.The matters stated by the applicant do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484.  Nor is any such question apparent to us from the matters she has raised.  

8.The applicant identified a number of alleged errors in our judgment but she did not provide particulars of any of them.  The Notice of Motion and submissions also do not engage the reasons for dismissing the appeal given in [14]‑[16] of our judgment.  None of those grounds is therefore reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.

9.We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

10.For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 17 May 2021 is dismissed.

The applicant acting in person