Re Mutmainah

CACV 523/2021

[2022] HKCA 1465

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 523 OF 2021

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 90 OF 2019)

____________________

____________________

____________________

D E C I S I O N

____________________

Hon Cheung JA (giving the Decision of the Court) :

1.On 14 April 2022, this Court handed down a judgment ([2022] HKCA 526) dismissing the applicant’s application to appeal an order of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 18 November 2021 who refused her application for leave to apply for judicial review in respect of her non‑refoulement claim.

2.On 25 April 2022, the applicant filed a notice of motion applying for leave to appeal this Court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant has also lodged written submissions on 10 May 2022.

3.Having considered the applicant’s notice of motion and written submissions, 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 at [3] in our judgment.  We shall not repeat them here.

5.Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (‘HKCFAO’) (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’s notice of appeal simply states that she wishes to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal without providing any grounds of appeal in support.  As for her written submissions, she again basically repeats her contention that her life is in danger in Indonesia and her wish to seek non‑refoulement protection.  

7.We are of the view that the grounds and arguments put forward by the applicant are bare assertions that do not constitute viable grounds for giving leave to appeal.  Importantly, no question of great general or public importance has been identified as required by section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.

8.Nor do we 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, accordingly, we dismiss the notice of motion dated 25 April 2022.

Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person