Kulwinder Kaur and Others v. Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non Refoulement Claims Petition Office

CAMP 505/2021

[2022] HKCA 1418

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 505 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2808 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

Before:  Hon Cheung and Chow JJA in Court

Date of Written Submissions:  2 September 2022

Date of Judgment:  28 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 Applicants’ application for “leave to appeal” against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Suffiad given on 27 October 2021 refusing to grant the Applicants an extension of time to appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge To dated 13 May 2021. By the latter order, Deputy High Court Judge To refused to grant leave to the Applicants to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 3 December 2018, whereby the Board dismissed the Applicants’ appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 23 February 2018.

2.The Applicants now apply by Notice of Motion dated 19 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 inform to the Court of Final there are some error in law to my decision maker authorities. I am disagree with the decision made by the Director of Immigration as well as the decision from Adjudicator of the Torture Claim Appeal Board. I do not think my case was determined fairly. It’s towards to my life and my children’s life as well danger in my home land in India.”

3.In the 1^st Applicant’s written submission dated 2 September 2022:

(1)  The Applicant repeats her complaint about the lack of language assistance, particularly in relation to the assessment of the BOR 2 risk.

(2)  The 1^st Applicant alleges that the lack of sound judgment and fairness throughout the non-refoulement claim process is appalling and should not be tolerated.

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.

7.For the avoidance of doubt, the absence of legal representation of the 2^nd to 4^th Applicants in this application is treated as an irregularity only without rendering their application a nullity.

The Applicants, acting in person