Case Document

100%Judiciary

CACV 374/2021

[2022] HKCA 21

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 374 OF 2021

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 221 OF 2021)

________________________

RE

NUR FEBRI PRIHATINI

Applicant

________________________

Before: Hon Barma JA and Lisa Wong J in Court

Date of Judgment: 6 January 2022

________________________

JUDGMENT

________________________

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 15 November 2021 ([2021] HKCA 1712) (“Judgment”), dismissing the applicant’s appeal from the decision made by Deputy High Court Judge P Li on 27 July 2021 ([2021] HKCFI 2187), refusing to extend time for the applicant to apply for leave for judicial review of the decision dated 12 March 2019 (“Board’s Decision”) of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) concerning her non-refoulement claim.

2.The time within which the applicant could seek leave to appeal against the Judgment expired on 29 November 2021. The notice of motion, issued on 14 December 2021, was therefore late for 15 days and the applicant requires a retrospective extension of time before she can proceed with the present application.

Paper disposal appropriate

3.Pursuant to the direction of the Registrar of Civil Appeals, 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 that a paper disposal is appropriate.

Discussion

4.Although the applicant was late for a relatively short period of time, she should have, but has not, given any explanation for the delay.

5.Turning to merits, under s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong 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.

6.In support of the application for leave to appeal, the applicant merely asserted as follows:

(1) by the notice of motion (sic):

“The High Court and the [CA] dismissed my leave to apply for judicial review. I am not satisfy. I did not get justice. The Director of Immigration and the [Board] rejected my claim. I want to go to the [CFA].”

(2) by the accompanying affirmation of the same date (sic):

“Affirmation for apply of notice of motion but out of my schedule time. Please accept my apply.”

(3) by the written submission lodged on 28 December 2021 (sic):

“My name is Nur Febri Prihatini. I am from Indonesia. My mother language is Indonesian. I came Hong Kong to save my life. My enemy wanted to kill me. I have no way to save myself. On the other hand my enemy are so powerful and rka that they can kill me any time. They pay money to police, so police help them. I was totally helpless in Indonesia, in other place except my home too not safe for me. The Director of Immigration and adjudicator of [Board] rejected my claim, which is very unreasonable and very painfull for me. It means I will send Indonesia by Hong Kong. Even the High Court too refused my leave.

I am really a poor woman. Please help me. I do not want to die. Do not kill me.”

7.The applicant has plainly not raised any or any arguable 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.We have already explained in [19] to [23] of the Judgment why the much-repeated assertion that the applicant’s life would be in danger in her home country is not sufficient to reverse the refusal of leave for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. However, the applicant has chosen not to engage our reasons.

10.As neither of the statutory criteria under s 22(1)(b) for leave to appeal to the CFA had been met, the notice of motion would have been dismissed even if the applicant had not been late in issuing the same.

11.In the circumstances, we refuse to extend time for the applicant’s application for leave to appeal to the CFA. We also dismiss the notice of motion.