Re Akther Mst Rama

CACV 87/2022

[2022] HKCA 1296

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 87 OF 2022

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 538 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

Before:  Hon Chu JA and B Chu J in Court

Date of Judgment:  8 September 2022

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

Hon B Chu J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.On 20 July 2022, this court handed down a judgment ([2022] HKCA 1025) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge To given on 15 February 2022 refusing her application for leave to apply for judicial review.

2.On 2 August 2022, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal this court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. She has also put in written submissions to support the application (“Written Submissions”).

3.Having considered the Notice of Motion and the Written Submission, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on paper without an oral hearing. We have therefore proceeded to determine the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents in the case.

4.The background to this case and the applicant’s claim have been set out in our judgment. We will not repeat them.

5.Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484 provides that leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal may be granted 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.

6.The applicant stated the following (insofar as we can make out) in the Notice of Motion:

“Failing to consider the fact I had raised in my claim which was assessed under torture risk, BOR 2 and 3 risk and persecution risk, the TCAB (Torture Claims Appeal Board) and the Director did [not ] show fair standard to assessed (sic) my claim above law, specially my claim would be under BOR 3 risk that I would face real risk by my enemies. The assessor simply assessed my claim, that my fear is low and I would not be harm or face any risk, but its absolutely wrong assessment. My fear is genuine and still continue threats for my by my enemies.”

7.In her Written Submission, the applicant argued amongst other things that:

(1)  The TCAB and the Director failed to take into account and/or give proper weight to relevant considerations and materials rendering their decisions illegal and specifically:

(a)  the Judges did not follow the high standard of fairness and the assessor did not conduct inquiry into her fear and that her enemies were still threatening her and the country of origin conditions information clearly showed that the authority of her country of origin would not be able or have no intention to protect her from her enemies;

(b)  her claim was based on a true story of her life and that the decision maker did not observe her fear well and the assessor simply refused her claim and stated her claim was not established;

(2)  Her claim was not a private and personal matter and that the decision maker did not have proper regard for her fear;

(3)  the Judges made decision and supported the TCAB decision and did not focus on her fear that her life would be in danger.

8.What was stated by the applicant in the Notice of Motion and Written Submission relate solely to the circumstances and facts of her claim. No question of great general and public importance has been identified, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance, had been identified. Further, for the reasons we gave in [14] to [18] of our judgment, the matters put forward by the applicant in this application are unarguable. We also do not see any basis for the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

9.As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.

The Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person.