Re Yuliani Rahmawati Galiman

CACV 3/2022

[2022] HKCA 957

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 3 OF 2022

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 2345 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

Before:  Hon Au JA and Lisa Wong J in Court

Date of Judgment:  30 June 2022

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Au JA (giving judgment of the court):

1.On 19 May 2022, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against this Court’s (Au JA and Lisa Wong J)  judgment of 13 May 2022 (“the Judgment”)  ([2022] HKCA 678). In the Judgment, we dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the Deputy Judge”)  dated 24 December 2021, by which the Deputy Judge refused her application for leave to apply for judicial review ([2021] HKCFI 3866).

2.The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as this Court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in the Judgment.  We will not repeat them here.  After reviewing the Notice of Motion, we see no reason to deviate from the usual practice to consider this application on paper pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1.

3.Section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484 (“the HKCFAO”)  provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of this Court or the Court of Final Appeal 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 Court of Final Appeal for decision.

4.In her Notice of Motion, the applicant stated:

“I would like to reject and review the decision made by the Court. They disregard my dangerous situation.” (sic)

5.Pursuant to Practice Direction 2.1, the applicant lodged her written submissions on 31 May 2022.  In those submissions, she claimed that she would be killed by the loan shark if refouled and would face grave danger.  She also asserted that there would be a genuine possibility that she would face life threat if refouled given her history of being attacked by her husband.  She further claimed that the Court and the Director of Immigration had failed to consider her case in context as domestic violence was treated as a private issue in Indonesia and the police would turn a blind eye to such issues.  She also claimed that Indonesia was generally facing issues of mistreatment to women and corruption and ineffectiveness of the police.

6.In our view, her appeal has no merit.  She did not identify any error in the Judgment with specific particulars.  Her application must fail on this basis alone.

7.In any event, general assertions of her fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].  As stated at [14] of the Judgment, it is trite that assessment of evidence, Country of Origin materials and risk of harm, state protection and viability of internal relocation are primarily within the province of the Board (and the Director)  as primary decision makers.  The Court will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there are errors of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14]; Re Md Shohel Sheak [2018] HKCA 714 at [13]; and Re Limbu Birkhaman [2019] HKCA 50 at [11].

8.Further, even taking her case at its highest, her assertions are fact-specific and do not relate to any question of great general or public importance.

9.Accordingly, the applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b)  of the HKCFAO.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b)  of the HKCFAO.

10.For these reasons, the Notice of Motion filed on 19 May 2022 is dismissed.

The applicant acting in person