Re Pascua Jenny Lyn Domingo

CACV 493/2022, [2023] HKCA 846

On Appeal from [2023] HKCA 573

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 493 OF 2022

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 2553/2018)

_____________

_____________

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

Hon Lisa Wong J (giving the judgment of the court):

Application

1.Before the court is a notice of motion filed on 8 May 2023 for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”) against the judgment dated 5 May 2023[1] of this court (G Lam JA and Lisa Wong J) (“Judgment”). By the Judgment, this court dismissed the applicant’s appeal from a decision dated 14 December 2022[2] by Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung, refusing her leave to apply for judicial review of the decision dated 9 November 2018 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board concerning her non-refoulement claim.

Paper disposal appropriate

2.Pursuant to the direction of the Registrar of Civil Appeals, unless this court otherwise directs, the notice of motion shall be determined on paper on the basis of the written materials filed with the court without an oral hearing. We agree that paper disposal is appropriate in this case.

Statutory threshold for leave to appeal to the CFA

3.Under s 22(1)(b) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484), an appeal shall lie to the CFA at the discretion of the Court of Appeal (“CA”) or the CFA from any civil judgment of the CA 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 CFA for decision.

Applicant’s contentions in support of leave to appeal to CFA

4.In seeking leave to appeal to the CFA, the applicant appended to her notice of motion a 3-page “grounds of appeal”, and later lodged written submission dated 22 May 2023, both of which are materially identical to the written submission dated 20 March 2023 that she had previously filed in support of her appeal against the refusal of leave to apply for judicial review.

5.A summary of the applicant’s said written submission dated 20 March 2023 can be found at [16] of the Judgment. We shall not repeat the same here.

Discussion and disposition

6.We have given reasons for dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the refusal for leave for judicial review. See [18]-[23] of the Judgment. The applicant has made no attempt to engage our reasons.

7.The applicant has plainly not identified any specific error in the Judgment that raises any, or any arguable, issue for determination by the CFA, whether of great, general or public importance or otherwise.

8.Nor do we see any scope to grant leave under the “or otherwise” limb.

9.As neither of the statutory criteria under s 22(1)(b) for leave to appeal to the CFA is met, we dismiss the notice of motion.

The applicant, unrepresented, acted in person