Panergo Marites Lacebal v. Torture Claims Appeal Board

CACV 185/2022

[2022] HKCA 1374

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 185 OF 2022

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2046 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

Before:  Hon Yuen and Chow JJA in Court

Date of Judgment:  26 September 2022

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

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

INTRODUCTION

1.On 4 August 2022, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan dated 29 April 2022 refusing to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dated 13 September 2018, whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 11 January 2018.

2.The Applicant now applies by Notice of Motion dated 26 August 2022 for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant states the following:

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

3.The Applicant has failed to lodge written submissions in support of her application, contrary to the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals dated 26 August 2022.

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.

The Applicant, acting in person