Re Muarofah

CAMP 70/2022

[2023] HKCA 369

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 70 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 1305 OF 2018)

-----------------------------------

-----------------------------------

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.On 23 June 2022, this court (Barma JA and G Lam JA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of DHCJ K W Lung dated 25 November 2021 refusing to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dismissing her appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting her non‑refoulement claim.

2.The facts and issues in the applicant’s 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 applicant subsequently applied, by a Notice of Motion filed out of time on 1 August 2022, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the applicant stated that her life would be in danger if she returned to her home country, and that the judge had failed to consider “all applicable grounds” of her claim.  In her supporting affirmation, she apologised for filing the Notice of Motion out of time.

4.In breach of the directions by the Registrar of Civil Appeals, the applicant failed to lodge written submissions with the Court. She is thus deemed to have abandoned her right to rely on written submissions.

5.Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion, 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 applicant’s application on the basis of the documents filed.

6.The applicant failed to explain how and when she eventually came to know about the judgment of this court.  We are therefore of the view that the applicant has failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay.  However, given the relatively short delay (of 11 days), we propose to focus on the merits of the application.

7.The matters stated by the applicant do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant has 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 she has raised.

8.The Notice of Motion does not identify any supposed error in our judgment and it raises no ground that is reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.

9.We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

10.For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 1 August 2022 is dismissed.