Weddawala Kankanamlage Sumanawathie v. Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 154/2022

[2022] HKCA 1633

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 154 OF 2022

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 614 OF 2019)

________________________

_____________________

Before:  Hon Chow JA and ST Poon J in Court

Date of Written Submissions:  25 October 2022

Date of Judgment:  15 November 2022

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

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

1.On 10 October 2022, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicants’ appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung dated 8 April 2022 refusing to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dated 21 June 2018, whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decisions of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 11 July 2016 and 4 July 2017.

2.The Applicant now applies by Notice of Motion dated 10 October 2022 for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant stated as follows:

“Director of Immigration and Torture Claims Appeal Board dismissed my [non-refoulement] claim. The High Court and the Court of Appeal dismissed my leave to apply for judicial review. All this judgments are not good for me. I want to go to C.F.A.”.

3.In her written submissions dated 25 October 2022, the Applicant repeated the history and basis of her non-refoulement claim, and alleged that she did not get justice from the Director, the Board and the High Court.

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.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