Re Bunquin Lowena Rivera

CAMP 554/2021

[2022] HKCA 1604

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 554 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1415 OF 2018)

____________________

____________________

____________________

D E C I S I O N

____________________

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

1.On 6 May 2022, this Court handed down a decision ([2022] HKCA 645) dismissing the applicant’s application to extend time to appeal an order of Deputy High Court Judge C. P. Pang given on 11 November 2020 refusing her application for leave to apply for judicial review in respect of her non‑refoulement claim.

2.On 13 May 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 a written submission on 27 May 2022.

3.Having considered the applicant’s notice of motion and written submission, 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 decision.  We will not repeat them.

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 grounds of appeal stated in the notice of motion are summarised as follows :

1)  The Judges were wrong not having applied the principles of procedural unfairness;

2)  The Judges were wrong not having applied the principle of irrationality;

3)  The decision maker relied on COL information which favours on rejecting her claim;

4)  Courts ignore the overwhelming of evidence of violence;

5)  The Judge did not apply the law properly;

6)  The applicant will be killed or harmed if she returns home.

7.In the applicant’s written submissions, she stated general non‑refoulement legal principles and case law without specifying how they relate to the particulars of her case.

8.We are of the view that the grounds and arguments 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, we, accordingly, dismiss the notice of motion.

The applicant, unrepresented, acting in person