Re Tarampi Gasat Agnir

CACV 394/2021

[2022] HKCA 1528

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 394 OF 2021

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2534 OF 2018)

____________________

____________________

Before :  Hon Kwan VP and Cheung JA in Court

Date of Decision :  17 October 2022

____________________

D E C I S I O N

____________________

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

1.On 25 April 2022, this Court handed down the judgment ([2022] HKCA 572) dismissing the applicant’s application to appeal an order of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 12 August 2021 who refused her application for leave to apply for judicial review in respect of her non‑refoulement claim.

2.On 27 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 4 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 notice of motion stated simply that the applicant would face danger if she is to return to the Philippines.  The notice of motion stated the following in summary :

1)  The applicant will be in grave danger if she returns;

2)  She would be harmed or killed by her ‘husband / creditor’ for ‘refusing him to repaying his debts’;

3)  The Torture Claims Appeal Board erred on its assessment of the situation in the Philippines; and

4)  The Philippines authority will not protect the applicant.

7.As for the written submissions, the applicant asserts similar contentions as stated in her notice of motion.  She further alleges the severity of her case and disagrees with the assessment of the authorities.  The written submissions stated the following in summary :

1)  The applicant as a non-refoulement claimant does not have legal knowledge;

2)  Loan sharks in the Philippines are notorious for resorting to threats and violence;

3)  The Philippines authority is corrupt;

4)  The applicant cannot relocate to another location without living like a fugitive; and

5)  The applicant suffers from mental, political and religious conflicts.

8.In our view, what have been put forward by the applicant 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.

9.Nor do we see any basis for the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).

10.As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, accordingly, we dismiss the notice of motion dated 27 April 2022.

Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person