Evi v. Torture Claims Appeal Board

CAMP 214/2022

[2022] HKCA 1427

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 214 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2315 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

Before:  Hon Au and Chow JJA in Court

Date of Written Submissions:  20 September 2022

Date of Judgment:  30 September 2022

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

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

1.On 6 September 2022, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s application for an extension of time to appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan dated 24 November 2021 refusing to grant her leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dated 2 October 2018, whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 16 November 2017.

2.The Applicant now applies by Notice of Motion dated 6 September 2022 for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the following is stated:

“The High Court and the Court of Appeal dismissed my leave to apply. I did not get justice. To get justice I want to go to the Court of Final Appeal.”

3.In the written submissions of the Applicant dated 20 September 2022, she repeats her claim that her life will be threatened in her home country, and alleges that she did not get the letter for appeal (that presumably being a reference to the decision of the Judge dated 24 November 2021).

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