Irnawati Tutik v. Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 293/2022

[2023] HKCA 126

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 293 OF 2022

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 675 OF 2019)

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

Before:  Hon Chow JA and K Yeung J in Court

Date of Written Submissions:  13 December 2022

Date of Judgment:  1 February 2023

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon K Yeung J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.On 14 November 2022, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”)  dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the order made by Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung on 26 July 2022 refusing to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office/Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”)  dated 4 March 2019.

2.The Applicant now applies by Notice of Motion dated 30 November 2022 for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the following is stated [sic]:

“The Director of Immigration the Adjudicator of Torture Claims Appeal Board dismissed my non refoulement claim. The High Court the Court of Appeal dismissed my leave to apply for judicial review. I do not satisfy. I want to go to the Court of Final Appeal”.

3.In her written submissions dated 13 December 2022, the Applicant essentially repeats what she submitted during the appeal and requests “the Court of Appeal to consider my appeal and grant my leave.”

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, inter alia, the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal 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 or the written submissions.  We are unable to see any such question being involved in the proposed appeal.  There is also no basis to grant leave to appeal on the “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.