Re Alcaraz Nora Arid

CACV 516/2020

[2021] HKCA 1904

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 516 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 577/2018)

________________________

________________________

______________

JUDGMENT

______________

Hon Lisa Wong J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

Application

1.Before the court is a notice of motion filed on 28 May 2021 by the abovenamed applicant, applying for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”) against this court’s judgment dated 21 May 2021 ([2021] HKCA 726) (“Judgment”), dismissing the applicant’s appeal from a decision dated 11 August 2020 ([2020] HKCFI 1894) by Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan, refusing her leave to apply for judicial review of the decision dated 27 March 2018 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) concerning her non-refoulement claim.

Paper disposal appropriate

2.Pursuant to the direction of the Registrar of Civil Appeals (“Registrar”), unless this court otherwise directs, the notice of motion shall be determined on paper without an oral hearing.  We agree with the Registrar that a paper disposal is appropriate in this case.

Statutory threshold for leave to appeal to the CFA

3.Under s 22(1)(b) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484), an appeal shall lie to the CFA at the discretion of the Court of Appeal (“CA”) or the CFA from any civil judgment of the CA if 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 CFA for decision.

Applicant’s contentions in support of leave to appeal to CFA

4.In seeking leave to appeal to the CFA, the applicant stated in the notice of motion that she wanted to challenge the decision, which is presumably the Judgment.

5.The applicant failed to comply with Practice Direction 2.1 and did not lodge any skeleton submission within time, despite having been reminded of such requirement by the Registrar by letter dated 1 June 2021.  We are therefore left to deal with this application on the basis of the material already filed with the court.

Discussion

6.The applicant has plainly not raised any issue for determination by the CFA, whether of great, general or public importance or otherwise.

7.Nor do we see any scope to grant leave under the “or otherwise” limb.

8.The notice of motion did not engage the reasons given in the Judgment.  The applicant did not identify any error in the Judgment.  At the risk of stating the obvious, an expression of a subject wish to challenge the Judgment is grossly insufficient. In our view, the applicant has not put forward any ground that is reasonably arguable before the CFA.

9.As neither of the statutory criteria under s 22(1)(b) for leave to appeal to the CFA is met, we dismiss the notice of motion.

The applicant, unrepresented, acted in person