Re Sutrisnowati Binti Ali

CACV 57/2022, [2023] HKCA 1149

On Appeal From [2022] HKCFI 244

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 57 OF 2022

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2079 OF 2018)

_________________________

_________________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.This court handed down judgment on 10 February 2023 ([2023] HKCA 136) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against an order of DHCJ K. W. Lung given on 21 January 2022 in which he refused the applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review in respect of his non‑refoulement claim.

2.The facts and issues in the application before this court, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment and will not be repeated here.

3.On 10 February 2023, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion for leave to appeal against this court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.

4.The applicant attached grounds of appeal to the Notice of Motion which may be summarized as follows:

(1)  Being a non-refoulement claimant who has no in-depth knowledge of Hong Kong laws, she was not informed about what else she can do.

(2)  The loan sharks in Indonesia use the loans as leverage to force borrowers into servitude, prostitution, giving sexual favours and other forms of sordid exchanges. They are notorious for killing those who have defaulted in their loans. This will happen to the applicant if she is to return to Indonesia. Evidence suggests that the government and law enforcers were unsuccessful in curbing out murders committed by loan sharks.

(3)  The applicant’s husband also threatened to harm and kill her should she return home.

(4)  The applicant cannot rely on her government. Some police officials are known to be involved, or are known protectors of loan sharks. Police corruption is widespread in Indonesia.

(5)  Relocation is also improbable as she will need to live like a fugitive to avoid being found by her husband and the loan shark.

5.In compliance with the directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals made on 10 February 2023, the applicant lodged her written submissions on 22 February 2023. Her written submissions are substantially the same as her grounds of appeal.

6.As it is appropriate to do so, the Notice of Motion is determined on paper without an oral hearing.

7.Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (“HKCFAO”) (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.

8.The applicant’s grounds in the present application are substantially the same as the ones advanced in her appeal before this court. We have already considered them and explained why her appeal should be dismissed. The applicant has failed to identify any errors in our judgment. No question of great general or public importance has been identified as required by section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.

9.Nor do we see any basis for granting leave under the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

10.By reason of the above, we will dismiss the Notice of Motion filed on 10 February 2023.

The applicant, unrepresented, acting in person