Yuliani v. Director of Immigration

CAMP 413/2022

[2023] HKCA 85

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 413 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 978 OF 2021)

________________________

________________________

Before:  Hon Yuen and Chow JJA in Court

Date of Written Submissions:  10 January 2023

Date of Judgment:  27 January 2023

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

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

1.On 23 December 2022, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s application for an extension of time to appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan dated 24 August 2021 refusing to grant her leave to apply for judicial review. The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 11 June 2021 refusing to allow the Applicant to re-open her non-refoulement claim.

2.The Applicant now applies by Notice of Motion dated 28 December 2022 for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant stated as follows:

“I would like to review my case, not agree with the decision”.

3.In her written submissions dated 10 January 2023, the Applicant stated that she had some problem in her home country, but did not particularise what her problem was. She also asked for protection of her life. The Applicant did not point to or identify any alleged error 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