Villalva Alicia Garcia v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Read the full judgment text of CACV 177/2021 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 14 December 2021.
1. On 24 August 2021, this Court gave its judgment (“ the CA Judgment ”) dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung refusing to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/adjudicator of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 3 July 2018.
Cited by 1 case
|
CACV 177/2021 [2021] HKCA 1873 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO 177 OF 2021 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1424 OF 2018) ________________________
_____________________ Before: Hon Yuen and Chow JJA in Court Date of Written Submissions: 19 November 2021 Date of Judgment: 14 December 2021 ________________________ JUDGMENT ________________________ Hon Chow JA (giving the Judgment of the Court): 1.On 24 August 2021, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung refusing to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/adjudicator of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 3 July 2018. 2.The Applicant now applies by Notice of Motion dated 5 November 2021 for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the following is stated:
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, unrepresented, appeared in person |
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under CACV 177/2021