Re Rukayati Bt Kasdi Sodo
Read the full judgment text of CACV 391/2021 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 23 December 2021.
1. The applicant is an Indonesian 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 to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision was rejected by Deputy High Court Judge P Li, [1] and her appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court on 11 November 2021. [2]
Cited by 1 case · Cites 2 cases
|
CACV 391/2021 [2021] HKCA 1957 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO 391 OF 2021 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2997 OF 2018)
____________ Before: Hon Au and G Lam JJA in Court Date of Written Submissions: 25 November 2021 Date of Judgment: 23 December 2021 _________________ J U D G M E N T _________________ Hon G Lam JA (giving the Judgment of the Court): 1.The applicant is an Indonesian 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 to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision was rejected by Deputy High Court Judge P Li,[1] and her appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court on 11 November 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 11 November 2021, leave to appeal further to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the applicant simply stated: “I want to challenge the decision.” 4.Her written submissions of 25 November 2021 merely reiterated her reason for seeking non-refoulement protection, which had been addressed previously. 5.Pursuant to the directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals under Practice Direction 2.1, this application is dealt with on paper without an oral hearing. 6.Having considered the materials available, we are satisfied that there is no reasonable prospect of success in the intended appeal or any 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 391/2021