Re Umayah Saino

CAMP 428/2022, [2024] HKCA 42

On Appeal From [2021] HKCFI 1783

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 428 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2032 OF 2018)

________________

________________

________________

D E C I S I O N

________________

Hon Cheung JA (giving the Decision of the Court) :

1.On 14 July 2023, this Court handed down decision ([2023] HKCA 868) dismissing the applicant’s renewed application to extend time to appeal an order of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 22 June 2021 refusing her extension of time application for leave to apply for judicial review in respect of her non-refoulement claim.

2.On 31 July 2023, the applicant filed a notice of motion applying for leave to appeal this Court’s decision to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant has also lodged a written submission on 14 August 2023.

3.On 8 November 2023, the Appeal’s Registry received a request from the applicant to dismiss her appeal.

4.Having considered the applicant’s notice of motion, written submission and notice of dismissal, 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.

5.The background to this case and the applicant’s claim have been set out in our decision. We will not repeat them.

6.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.

7.The grounds of appeal stated in the notice of motion is as follows :

‘ I would like to inform to Court of Final Appeal. I am disagree with the decision maker authorities. They are totally relied on some web news and information which officially not recognized and previous facts which is not favor in my claim. I do not think my case determined fairly.’

8.In the applicant’s written submission, she stated that she was not provided with interpretation service. As such she was put at a disadvantaged position and was discriminated against. She complained that the Court and the authorities have been negligent and failed to perform a standard of care to non-refoulement claimants like her.

9.The lack of language assistance was not raised by the applicant before. At the Board hearing, an interpreter was provided to the applicant. The applicant was represented by Duty Lawyer and interpreter at the interview by the Immigration Department for her non-refoulement claim. Her claim about not having assistance for her BOR 2 risk claim has no merits because the Director’s decision covered all the applicable grounds.

10.We are of the view that the grounds and arguments put forward by the applicant do not constitute viable grounds for giving leave to appeal. Importantly, no question of great general or public importance has been identified as required by section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.

11.Nor do we see any basis for the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).

12.As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, we, accordingly, dismiss the notice of motion.

13.We would also according to the applicant’s request for dismissal of appeal filed on 8 November 2023 dismiss the applicant’s notice of motion filed on 31 July 2023.

The applicant, unrepresented, acting in person