Calpito Winnie Ramos v. Torture Claims Appeal Board

CACV 442/2021

[2022] HKCA 233

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 442 OF 2021

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 814 OF 2021)    

________________________

________________________

Before: Hon Au and Chow JJA in Court

Date of Judgment: 18 February 2022

________________________

JUDGMENT

________________________

Hon Chow JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.On 10 January 2022, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan dated 31 August 2021 refusing to extend time for the Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 11 February 2021 and dismissing her leave application.

2.The Applicant now applies by Notice of Motion dated 24 January 2022 for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the following is stated:

“I am the applicant herein. I make this application in support of my application for judicial review for leave to apply my non-refoulement claims decision against the director of immigration/torture claims appeal board.”

3.The Applicant has not filed any written submissions in support of the Notice of Motion, despite the direction of the Registrar of Civil Appeals dated 24 January 2021.

4.Under s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484, an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of, inter alia, the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal 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 Court of Final Appeal for decision.

5.No question of great general or public importance involved in the proposed appeal is identified in the Notice of Motion.  We are unable to see any such question being involved in the proposed appeal. We are satisfied that the intended appeal has no merits and no reasonable prospect of success.  There is also no basis to grant leave to appeal on the “or otherwise” limb in s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance.

6.Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is refused and the Notice of Motion is dismissed.

The Applicant, unrepresented, acted in person