Rosidah v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CAMP 307/2023, [2023] HKCA 1348

On An Intended Appeal From [2023] HKCFI 1653 &

[2023] HKCFI 2146

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 307 OF 2023

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 674 OF 2023)

________________________

________________________

_____________________

J U D G M E N T

_____________________

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

1.On 30 June 2023, Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung made an order refusing to grant the Applicant leave to apply for judicial review. The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 21 February 2023, whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 16 September 2022 rejecting her non-refoulement claim.

2.On 22 November 2023, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s application for an extension of time to appeal against the Judge’s order of 30 June 2023. The basic facts of this case and the Court’s reasons for dismissing the Applicant’s appeal have been set out in the CA Judgment and will not be repeated here.

3.By Notice of Motion dated 22 November 2023, the Applicant applies for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant states that she is suffering from stress and is mentally unwell. She complains that her claim under BOR 2 and BOR 3 was not properly assessed by the Director and the Board, and there was a failure to consider her written submissions.

4.In her written submissions dated 6 December 2023, the Applicant repeats her allegation that she will face real risk from her enemies in her home country, and she will be killed in her country upon refoulement. She also makes some general allegations that the decision makers failed to take into account relevant considerations and took into account irrelevant considerations, and there was a failure to pay due regard to applicable rules of law and all relevant matters.

5.Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, we determine the present application for leave to appeal on paper without an oral hearing.

6.Under s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484, an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal in any civil cause or matter if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal (as the case may be), 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.

7.No question of great general or public importance involved in the proposed appeal is identified in the Notice of Motion. We are unable to see any such question being involved in the proposed appeal. The Applicant has not identified any error in the CA Judgment, or raised any viable ground of appeal against the CA Judgment. We are satisfied that the intended appeal has no merits and no reasonable prospect of success.

8.There is also no basis to grant leave to appeal on the “or otherwise” limb in s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance.

9.Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is refused and the Notice of Motion is dismissed.

The Applicant, acting in person