Case Document

100%Judiciary

CACV 234/2021

[2021] HKCA 1999

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 234 OF 2021

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1987 OF 2018)

____________
RE:	MULYANTINI SRI	Applicant

____________

Before: Hon Chu and G Lam JJA in Court

Date of Written Submissions: 22 November 2021

Date of Judgment: 30 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 for judicial review of the Board’s decision was rejected by Deputy High Court Judge To,[1] and her appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court on 28 October 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 8 November 2021, leave to appeal further to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the applicant stated:

“ 1. The learned Judges were wrong as a matter of law for not having applied the principle of irrationality to the decision made by the Director of Immigration refusing my application for judicial review.

2. The learned Judges were wrong as a matter of law for not having applied the principle of procedural unfairness to the decision of the director whereby the director was required to give reasons justifying the decision.

3. There is some error in law in my decision. The decision maker just relied on COL information any my previous facts, which were favor on rejecting my claim.

4. Actual life occur different situation then mentioned COL information. Officer and courts prefers to ignore the overwhelming of the evidence of the violence towards minorities searching for unrealistic silver lining.

5. The Judge did not apply the law properly.

6. Procedural unfairness.”

4.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.

5.The applicant’s written submissions of 22 November 2021 are virtually identical to her submissions previously lodged for the appeal to this Court. We already addressed and rejected those arguments in our judgment of 28 October 2021 for the reasons stated therein.

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.