Re Lama Mina

CAMP 40/2022

[2022] HKCA 1869

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 40 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 568 OF 2019)

____________________

____________________

Before:  Hon Cheung JA and Barma JA in Court

Date of Judgment: 30 December 2022

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.On 28 March 2022, this court (Cheung JA and Barma JA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge P Li dated 25 January 2022 refusing to grant an extension of time to appeal against the Judge’s decision dated 29 September 2021, in which the Judge refused leave for the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decisions of the Director of Immigration and the Torture Claims Appeal Board by which her non-refoulement claim and appeal were both dismissed.

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 6 May 2022, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion and her affirmation filed on the same date, the applicant complained, in gist, that she was not provided with legal and language assistance in her application to this court, the lack of which she contends had amounted to procedural unfairness.

4.In her written submissions lodged on 20 May 2022, the applicant repeated the apparent prejudice caused to her due to a lack of interpretation assistance, and that “a litigant like [her] is unable to understand such legal jargons”.

5.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.

6.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.  However, given the short delay of around 2 weeks, we propose to focus on and proceed to consider the merits of the present application.

7.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.

8.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).

9.For these reasons, the Notice of Motion filed on 6 May 2022 is dismissed.

The applicant acting in person