Septi Aditiyaning Rahayu v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 186/2022

[2022] HKCA 1712

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 186 OF 2022

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 910 OF 2019)

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

Hon Ng J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.On 20 September 2022, this Court gave its judgment (“CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the order made by Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung on 4 May 2022 refusing to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dated 1 March 2019. The Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 29 June 2018.

2.The Applicant now applies by Notice of Motion dated 26 September 2022 for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the following is stated:

“I would like to inform Court of Final Appeal. I am disagree with the decision maker authorities. There is no such investigation in my case. Torture Claim Appeal Board as well as the Director of Immigration totally relied on web old information which is not related with the a comman citizan. Its toward to my life”.

3.The Applicant’s written submissions add nothing of substance to her application and fail to identify any proposed ground of appeal against the CA Judgment.

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, inter alia, the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal, 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.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.

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

The Applicant, acting in person.