Re Villanueva Reggie Cayanan and Another

CAMP 485/2021

[2023] HKCA 472

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 485 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 817 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Chu VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.On 17 February 2023, this court handed down our judgment ([2023] HKCA 196)  dismissing the applicants’ application to extend time to appeal the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 22 September 2020, which dismissed their application for leave to judicially review the Torture Claims Appeal Board’s decision not to re-open their appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting their non-refoulement claims.

2.On 2 March 2023, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion on behalf of herself and the 2^nd applicant to apply for leave to appeal this court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  Despite directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals, the applicants have not lodged any written submission in support of the application.

3.Having considered the Notice of Motion, 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 applicant’s application on the basis of the documents in the case.

4.The background to this case and the applicants’ claims have 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.In the Notice of Motion, the 1^st applicant only stated that she is not satisfied with the decision and wants to appeal.  

7.In the absence of any ground supporting the application, there is no basis on which leave to appeal can be given.  Importantly, the requirement of section 22(1)(b)  of the Ordinance has not been satisfied since no question of great general or public importance has been identified.  Nor do we see any basis for the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

8.Further, in the case of the 2^nd applicant who is a minor, we will treat the non-compliance with Order 80 rule 2 of the Rules of the High Court, Cap 4A[1] as a mere irregularity that does not nullify the present application: Zoraydah v Torture Claims Appeal Board [2020] HKCA 442.

9.As the statutory requirement for granting leave to appeal has not been met, we dismiss the Notice of Motion.

The applicant, unrepresented, acting in person