Re Ninik Etika Sari

CAMP 329/2021

[2022] HKCA 1774

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 329 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 2651 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.On 25 February 2022, this court (Barma JA and G Lam JA)  handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of DHCJ KW Lung dated 6 May 2021 refusing leave for the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dismissing the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting her non-refoulement claim.

2.The facts and issues in the application, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment.[1]  We will not repeat them here.

3.The applicant subsequently applied, by a Notice of Motion filed out of time on 13 April 2022, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the applicant merely stated that she would like to “go to the Court of Final Appeal”.

4.In the affirmation filed on 13 April 2022, the applicant deposed:

“Apply of Notice of Motion but out of scheduled time. Please accept my apply.”

5.In her written submissions lodged on 27 April 2022, the applicant merely repeated the dangers she may face should she be refouled to Indonesia.  She contended “there are too many error but the Honourable Judges could not find”, without providing particulars.

6.Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion, affirmation and written submissions, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on the papers. We have, therefore, determined the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents filed.

7.The applicant failed to explain how and when she eventually came to know about the judgment of this court.  We are therefore of the view that the applicant has failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay.

8.In any event, the matters advanced by the applicant do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine, as required by section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484.  Nor is any such question apparent to us from the matters she has raised.

9.None of the matters stated in the Notice of Motion are therefore in our view reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

10.For these reasons, the Notice of Motion filed on 13 April 2022 is dismissed.

The applicant acting in person