Rinawati and Another v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulment Claims Petition Office

CAMP 119/2022

[2023] HKCA 332

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 119 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 648 OF 2019)

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

________________________

JUDGMENT

________________________

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

1.On 15 December 2022, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”)  dismissing the Applicants’ application for leave to appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge P Li dated 25 March 2022 dismissing their application for an extension of time to appeal against the Judge’s earlier order dated 26 January 2022 refusing to grant them leave to apply for judicial review. The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 6 December 2018, whereby the Board dismissed the Applicants’ appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 23 March 2018 rejecting the Applicants’ non-refoulement claims.

2.By Notice of Motion dated 3 February 2023, the Applicants apply for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant states the following:

“I would like to inform to Court of Final Appeal. There is some error in law maker decision. The authorities totally relied on some news and web news which is not officially recognised. I am disagree with the decision made by the Director of Immigration as well the decision made by Torture Claim Appeal Board. I do not think my case determined fairly.” [sic]

3.In the written submissions of the 1^st Applicant dated 16 February 2023, she complains about the lack of language assistance in relation to the assessment of BOR 2 risk, and makes some general complaints about the non-refoulement claim process and court procedures. 

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.  The complaint about the lack of language assistance has been dealt with at §18 of the CA Judgment.  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.

7.For the avoidance of doubt, the non-compliance with Order 80 rule 2 in these proceedings is treated as a mere irregularity without rendering the 2^nd Applicant’s application a nullity.

The Applicants, acting in person