Tamang Manisha v. Director of Immigration

CACV 480/2021

[2022] HKCA 1142

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 480 OF 2021

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 390 OF 2021)

____________

____________

Before:  Hon Cheung and G Lam JJA in Court

Date of Written Submissions:  5 July 2022

Date of Judgment:  11 August 2022

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

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

1.On 21 June 2022 we handed down our judgment[1] dismissing the applicant’s appeal from the judgment of Coleman J[2] whereby the judge dismissed her application for leave to apply for judicial review against the Director of Immigration’s refusal to renew her work visa.

2.By Notice of Motion filed on 22 June 2022, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”).  She has also lodged written submissions in support of her application.  But what the applicant stated in those documents is incomprehensible, for they suggested she had made a claim for non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong because she faced danger in her home country.  This has nothing at all to do with the present case which is her attempt to challenge the Director’s refusal to renew her work visa as a domestic helper.

3.There is no reason for us to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on the basis of the available materials without an oral hearing, as set out in paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1.

4.The application must be dismissed because the application is completely misconceived.  The applicant has not shown that the intended appeal raises any question which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the CFA for decision (which is the condition for giving leave to appeal under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484).  Further, she has failed to show any prospects of success in the intended appeal.

5.Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.

The Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person