Re Bolencis Edna Beltiar
Read the full judgment text of CACV 274/2021 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 19 November 2021.
1. The applicant is a Philippine national whose non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration and the Torture Claims Appeal Board/adjudicator of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office. Her application for leave for judicial review of the Board’s decision was rejected by Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan, [1] and her appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court on 7 October 2021. [2]
Cited by 1 case · Cites 2 cases
|
CACV 274/2021 [2021] HKCA 1715 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO 274 OF 2021 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 957 OF 2018) ____________
____________ Before: Hon G Lam JA and Coleman J in Court Date of Written Submissions: 2 November 2021 Date of Judgment: 19 November 2021 _________________ J U D G M E N T _________________ Hon G Lam JA (giving the Judgment of the Court): 1.The applicant is a Philippine national whose non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration and the Torture Claims Appeal Board/adjudicator of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office. Her application for leave for judicial review of the Board’s decision was rejected by Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan,[1] and her appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court on 7 October 2021.[2] 2.The relevant facts and procedural history and the reasons for dismissing the appeal have been set out in our previous judgment and will not be repeated here. 3.The applicant now seeks, by Notice of Motion dated 20 October 2021, leave to appeal further to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the applicant substantially reiterated the grounds raised in her prior Notice of Appeal, which we had already addressed in our judgment of 7 October 2021. 4.Pursuant to the directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals under Practice Direction 2.1, this application will be dealt with on paper without an oral hearing. 5.In her written submissions of 2 November 2021, the applicant again reiterated her previous arguments on appeal to this Court. We had already addressed and rejected those arguments in our judgment in the appeal. 6.Having considered the materials available, we are satisfied that there is no reasonable prospect in the intended appeal, nor question involved which, by reason of its great general or public importance, ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484). Nor do we see any reason why the applicant should, for some other reason, be allowed to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. 7.The Notice of Motion is therefore dismissed.
The Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person |
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under CACV 274/2021