Re Sae-jao Moei-on

CAMP 255/2021

[2022] HKCA 352

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 255 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1822 OF 2018)

____________________

____________________

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

Hon G Lam JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.The applicant is a Thai 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 K W Lung,[1] and her application for extension of time to appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court on 21 January 2022.[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 28 January 2022, leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the applicant stated:

“ I am writing this grounds regarding my appeal was dismissed by high court and I was submit my suporting document to court for my appeal against judicial review I feel sad about this decision because still I have problem in my country by my x husband if I go my life become unserten and danger, and he make many trouble to my mother too, and he is very dangerous man allways he use the drugs with other gangsters. Therefore I am expecting protection for my life. and I will try my best to inform and submit any suporting document if I got. and in my oral hearing I try my best to submit Thank you.” [sic]

4.Despite the acknowledgment by the applicant on 28 January 2022 of the requirement under Practice Direction 2.1 and the directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals on the same day, the applicant has not to date lodged any written submissions in support of her application.  We shall deal with the application on the basis of the materials available without an oral hearing.

5.Nothing has been put forward by the applicant to show, and we are unable to see, any 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 other reason why the applicant should be allowed to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

6.The Notice of Motion is therefore dismissed.