Bano Mumtaz v. Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office and Another

CACV 93/2022

[2022] HKCA 1525

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 93 OF 2022

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2762 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

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

1.On 25 July 2022, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge To dated 16 February 2022 refusing to grant her leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 19 November 2018, whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 14 February 2018.

2.The Applicant now applies by Notice of Motion dated 8 September 2022 for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant alleges that there is some error in the decisions of the authorities, and states that she disagrees with the decisions of the Director and the Board and does not think that her case was determined fairly.

3.In her written submissions dated 19 September 2022, the Applicant complains about the lack of legal and language assistance, and procedural unfairness. She also makes a complaint about not being fully informed of her rights, and says that she should be given an opportunity to be fully heard with legal and language assistance.

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.The Applicant did not raise any complaint about lack of legal or language assistance in her Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeal. The suggestion that she was not given any opportunity to be fully heard with legal and language assistance has plainly no substance, in view of the fact that she gave written consent on 25 February 2022 for her appeal to be disposed of on paper by the Court of Appeal. In so far as the application for leave to apply for judicial review was concerned, she failed to attend the oral hearing scheduled for 13 January 2022, and thus the Judge dealt with the leave application on paper. The complaint that she was not fully informed of her right is a general complaint without particulars. She has failed to identify what particular right(s) she was unaware of, and how her case might have been determined differently had she been aware of such right(s).

6.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.

7.Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is refused and the Notice of Motion is dismissed.

The Applicant, acting in person