Re Hariatiningsih

CAMP 300/2021

[2022] HKCA 1571

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 300 OF 2021

(ON AN APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1348 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.On 9 September 2022, this court handed down a judgment ([2022] HKCA 1321)  dismissing the applicant’s renewed application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 30 April 2021 refusing to extend the time for her to apply for judicial review.

2.On 22 September 2022, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal this court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  Despite directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeal, she has not put in any written submission to support the application.

3.Having considered the Notice of Motion, 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 in our judgment.  We will not repeat them.

5.Section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, 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 states that: (1)  there is some error in the decision of her case; (2)  the decision maker just relied on country of origin information (“COI”)  and facts that favour the rejection of the applicant’s claim, when actual situation is different from what is stated in the COI; (3)  the Court has ignored the overwhelming evidence of violence towards minorities; (4)  the decision betrays bias and a formulaic approach with no fair assessment of the danger to the applicant’s life; and (5)  the applicant asks for legal assistance and a consideration of her real situation.

7.The matters put forward in the Notice of Motion do not amount to viable grounds for the intended appeal.  Importantly, the applicant fails to identify any question of great general and public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b)  of the Ordinance, had been identified.  

8.We also do not 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, we dismiss the Notice of Motion.

The applicant, unrepresented, acting in person.