Re Racimo Melanie Narciso and Another

CAMP 487/2021

[2022] HKCA 1886

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 487 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 2427/2018)

____________________

____________________

Before:  Hon Chu VP 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 22 April 2022, this court (Chu JA (as she then was) and Barma JA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicants’ application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of DHCJ KW Lung dated 28 July 2020 refusing leave for the applicants to apply for judicial review. The applicants had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dismissing the appeal from the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting their non‑refoulement claims.

2.The facts and issues in the applicants’ 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 applicants subsequently applied, by a Notice of Motion filed on 6 May 2022, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  Notwithstanding that the Notice of Motion appears to have been taken out by only the 1^st applicant, the grounds stated therein referred to the 1^st and 2^nd applicants and we shall accordingly, treat the application as being brought by both applicants.  In the Notice of Motion, the applicants stated, essentially, that the problems in their home country are still apparent, and that they are at present already well-suited to life in Hong Kong.

4.In the written submissions lodged on 20 May 2022, by the 1^st applicant on behalf of both applicants, the 1^st applicant stated, in gist, that there is still a risk of harm if she were to return to the Philippines, and that her son (the 2^nd applicant) is well-adjusted to life in Hong Kong and “cannot study” in the Philippines.

5.Having considered the applicants’ Notice of Motion 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 applicants’ application on the basis of the documents filed.

6.The matters stated by the applicants do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicants have 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 they have raised.

7.Neither the Notice of Motion nor the written submissions identify any supposed error in our judgment and they raise no ground that is reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.

8.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 dated 6 May 2022 is dismissed.

The applicants acting in person