Re Lutfiana

CAMP 315/2022, [2024] HKCA399

On Appeal From [2021] HKCFI 2051

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 315 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2314 OF 2018)

____________________

____________________

____________________

DECISION

____________________

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

1.On 25 April 2023, this Court handed down the decision ([2023] HKCA 583) dismissing the applicant’s application to extend time to appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge To given on 16 July 2021 refusing her application for leave to apply for judicial review in respect of her non‑refoulement claim.

2.On 2 May 2023, the applicant filed a notice of motion applying for leave to appeal this Court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  Pursuant to the directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals also dated 2 May 2023, the applicant was to lodge and serve her written submissions on or before 16 May 2023 failing which she will be deemed to have abandoned her right to rely on written submissions and the matter will be considered by this Court based on the available materials.  The applicant has not lodged or served written submission by the stipulated deadline.

3.On 28 March 2024, the Appeals Registry received a request from the applicant to dismiss her appeal.

4.Having considered the applicant’s notice of motion, 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.In summary the applicant stated the following in the notice of motion  :

1)  There is error in law in the decision.  The decision maker relied on Country of Origin Information which favors the rejection of her claim.

2)  The Judges were wrong for not applying the principle of irrationality to the Director’s decision.

3)  The situation in actual life is different from those mentioned in the Country of Origin Information.  Court ignore overwhelming evidence of violence against minorities searching for unrealistic silver lining.

4)  The Judge did not apply the law properly.

8.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.

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

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

11.We would also according to the applicant’s request for dismissal of appeal dismiss the applicant’s notice of motion.