Perater Alice Parcon v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Read the full judgment text of CACV 119/2022 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 21 September 2022.

1. On 2 August 2022, this Court gave its judgment (“ the CA Judgment ”) dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the Order of Madam Justice Anna Lai dated 15 March 2022 refusing to grant the Applicant leave to apply for judicial review.

Cited by 1 case

Case No.CACV 119/2022[2022] HKCA 1317
Court
Court of Appeal
Date21 Sep 2022
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

CACV 119/2022

[2022] HKCA 1317

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 119 OF 2022

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 559 OF 2019)

________________________

BETWEEN

  PERATER ALICE PARCON Applicant
  and  
  TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE Putative Respondent
  and  
  DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION Putative
    Interested Party

________________________

Before: Hon Cheung and Chow JJA in Court
Date of Written Submissions: 29 August 2022
Date of Judgment: 21 September 2022

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

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

1.On 2 August 2022, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the Order of Madam Justice Anna Lai dated 15 March 2022 refusing to grant the Applicant leave to apply for judicial review.

2.The Applicant now applies by Notice of Motion dated 15 August 2022 for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the following is stated:

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

3.In the written submissions of the Applicant dated 29 August 2022, she repeats her complaints about the decision made by the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office, but has failed to identify any specific error in the CA Judgment.

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 the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal in any civil cause or matter if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal (as the case may be), 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.

(Peter Cheung)
Justice of Appeal
(Anderson Chow)
Justice of Appeal

The Applicant, acting in person