Yuni Agustin Ningsih and Another v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CAMP 507/2021

[2022] HKCA 1469

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 507 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2662 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

Before: Hon G Lam and Chow JJA in Court

Date of Written Submissions: 9 September 2022

Date of Judgment: 6 October 2022

________________________

JUDGMENT

________________________

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

1.On 3 August 2022, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicants’ application for “leave to appeal” against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Suffiad dated 28 October 2021 refusing to grant to the Applicants an extension of time to appeal against an earlier order of Deputy High Court Judge To dated 8 July 2021 refusing to grant them leave to apply for judicial review. The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dated 5 November 2018, whereby the Board dismissed the Applicants’ appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 13 April 2018

2.The Applicants now apply 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 following is stated:

“I would like to inform to Court of Final Appeal. There are some error in law in my decision maker and court as well. The authorities has significantly relied on the source of news which is not officially recognized or it is simply hearsay. They have also relied on some cases which are fairly outdated considering the dramatic changes. The lack of credible source of information has resulted in them making groundless speculations that it is safe for me. It’s toward to my life still in danger in Indonesia.”

3.In the 1^st Applicant’s Written Submissions dated 9 September 2022, she repeats her complaint about lack of language assistance, and makes some general allegations of unfairness in the non-refoulement claim assessment process and the “discriminatory act of authorities”.

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, we shall treat the non-compliance with Order 80 rule 2 in these proceedings as a mere irregularity without rendering the 2^nd Applicant’s application a nullity.

The Applicants, acting in person