Re Lilik Sumriyah and Others

CAMP 561/2021

[2023] HKCA 377

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 561 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 920 of 2018)

________________________

________________________

___________________

JUDGMENT

___________________

Hon Chu VP giving the Judgment of the Court:

1.On 17 February 2023, this Court handed down our judgment ([2023] HKCA 193)  refusing to extend the time for the 1^st to 3^rd applicants to appeal the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 27 April 2021 which refused to extend the time for them to apply for judicial review and dismissed their application for leave to apply for judicial review.     

2.On 21 February 2023, the 1^st applicant filed a notice of motion on behalf of herself and the 2^nd and 3^rd applicants to apply for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  The 1^st applicant has also put in a written submission to support the application.

3.Having considered the notice of motion and the written submission, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on paper without an oral hearing.  We have therefore proceeded to determine the applicants’ application on the basis of the documents in the case.

4.The background to this case and the applicants’ claim has been set out in our judgment.  We will not repeat them.

5.Section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484 provides that leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal may be granted if 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.

6.The notice of motion did not set out any ground in support of the application.  It only stated that the applicants want to review their case.

7.The 1^st applicant stated in her written submission that:   

(1)  She came to Hong Kong for the safety of her life. Although she loves her motherland, her life is in danger there.

(2)  She has told all her problems to the immigration officer and her problems are true.  However, her claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration, her appeal was dismissed by the Non-refoulement Claims Appeal Board. 

(3)  Her application to the Court was dismissed and she could not extend the time for appealing.

8.What was stated in the 1^st applicant’s written submission does not afford any basis for granting leave to appeal.  The applicants have not put forward any ground to support their application.  Critically, they have failed to show that the intended appeal involves any question of great general or public importance.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

9.As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, we dismiss the notice of motion.

The applicant, unrepresented, acted in person.