Wiwik Rohyatin v. Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 229/2022

[2022] HKCA 1670

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 229 OF 2022

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2558 OF 2018)

________________________

_____________________

Before:  Hon Chow JA and ST Poon J in Court

Date of Written Submissions:  31 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 28 February 2022 refusing to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dated 2 November 2018, whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 30 October 2017.

2.By Notice of Motion dated 17 October 2022, the Applicant applied for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant stated as follows: “I want to challenge the decision dated 10 Oct 2022.”

3.In the Applicant’s written submissions dated 31 October 2022, she repeated the basis of her non-refoulement claim, but failed to identify any alleged errors in 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 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