Re Khatun Arzina

CAMP 495/2021

[2022] HKCA 1629

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 495 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2798 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

Before:  Hon Chu VP and Cheung JA in Court

Date of Decision:  1 November 2022

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

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

I. Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal

1.On 4 May 2022, this Court handed down a decision ([2022] HKCA 621)  dismissing the applicant’s renewed application to extend time to appeal an order of Deputy High Court Judge To given on 31 May 2021 refusing her application for leave to apply for judicial review in respect of her non-refoulement claim. 

2.On 10 May 2022, the applicant filed a notice of motion applying for leave to appeal this Court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  He has not put in a written submission despite directions given by the Registrar for Civil Appeals.

3.Having considered the applicant’s 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 document 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 as follows :

‘ Dear Sir / Madam,

With due respect and humble submissions, I beg to you that I am against of the decision of the Court and I don’t accept the decision because I am not happy with the decision of the Court, Torture Claims Appeal Board and the Director of Immigration. The decisions made me irrational in my life and disappointed me about my life safety in my home country. Decision makers did not consider my claim properly. They did not scrutinize my problem in my home country. If I return back to my home country I will be killed by my enemy, but the Torture claims Appeal Board and the Director of Immigration did not consider and did not scrutinize my problem.’

II.  Our view

7.We are of the view that the grounds 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.

8.Nor do we 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, accordingly, dismiss the notice of motion.

The applicant, unrepresented, acting in person