Re Koriatul Karomah

CACV 494/2020

[2021] HKCA 1992

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 494 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 1392/2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

Application

1.Before the court is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”)  against this court’s judgment dated 4 June 2021 ([2021] HKCA 787)  (“Judgment”), dismissing the applicant’s appeal from the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan dated 16 January 2020 ([2020] HKCFI 131)  refusing her leave to apply for judicial review of the decision dated 8 June 2018 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”)  concerning her non-refoulement claim (“NRF Claim”).

2.The notice of motion, filed on 16 July 2021, was out of time.  By her affirmation filed on the same date, the applicant claimed that she did not receive the Judgment.

Paper disposal appropriate

3.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.  Having considered the material available to us, we agree with the Registrar that a paper disposal is appropriate in this case.

Statutory threshold for leave to appeal to the CFA

4.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

5.The applicant has not advanced any ground of appeal, properly so called, in the notice of motion.  She merely asserted that she had not got justice from the Director of Immigration, the Board, the Judge and this court because her claim/application/appeal had been refused.

6.The last date for the applicant to lodge written submission was 30 July 2021.  However, she did not do so until 12 August 2021.  By such submission, she basically just reiterated the allegations underlying the NRF Claim and how her claim, appeal to the Board, application for leave for judicial review and appeal to this court had been dismissed.

Discussion

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

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

9.The applicant did not engage the reasons we gave in the Judgment by contending as summarised in [5] and [6] above.

10.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.  We also refused to grant the applicant leave to file the notice of motion and written submission out of time.

The applicant, unrepresented, appeared in person