Rita Budiarti v. Torture Claims Appeal Board

CAMP 570/2021, [2023] HKCA 1207

On Appeal From [2023] HKCA 1000

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 570 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 87 OF 2021)

____________

____________

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

Hon G Lam JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.This is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”). The applicant’s claim for non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong was rejected by the Director of Immigration and by the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”). Her application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision was dismissed by the Court of First Instance. Her application for extension of time to appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court in our judgment dated 30 August 2023.

2.By Notice of Motion filed on 11 September 2023, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA. In that document the applicant stated that she did not get justice and wanted to go to the CFA for justice.

3.In her written submissions lodged on 25 September 2023, the applicant reiterated that she would face risk of harm if she returned to Indonesia, and said that she wanted to go to the CFA to voice the problems faced by her and her friends.

4.There is no reason for us to depart from the usual practice of determining an application for leave to appeal on the basis of the available materials without an oral hearing, as set out in paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1.

5.We take the view that this application ought to be dismissed because the applicant has not shown that the intended appeal raises any question which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the CFA for decision (which is the condition for giving leave to appeal under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484), and also because she has failed to show any prospects of success in the intended appeal.

6.Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.

The Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person