Khomariyah Bt Suryat Tukijan v. Director of Immigration

CAMP 163/2021

[2021] HKCA 1764

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 163 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 154 OF 2018)

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

Before:  Hon Au and Chow JJA in Court

Date of Written Submissions:  16 November 2021

Date of Judgment:  30 November 2021

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.On 20 September 2021, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”)  dismissing the Applicant’s renewed application for an extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the Deputy Judge”)  dated 16 June 2020 refusing to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 4 August 2017.

2.The Applicant now applies by Notice of Motion dated 18 October 2021 for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant states that there was some error by the decision maker who just relied on COI and facts which favoured the rejection of her non-refoulement claim.  She alleges that the High Court preferred to ignore the overwhelming evidence of violence towards minorities in her home country, and adopted a biased and formulaic approach which make it unlikely that her situation was fairly assessed.  She also requests for legal representation.

3.Under s 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484, an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of, inter alia, the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal 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.

4.No question of great general or public importance involved in the proposed appeal is identified in the Notice of Motion. We are unable to see any such question being involved in the proposed appeal. There is also no basis to grant leave to appeal on the “otherwise” limb in s 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance.

5.Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is refused and the Notice of Motion is dismissed.

The Applicant, acting in person