Re Khatun Mst Ruzina

CAMP 19/2023, [2024] HKCA 683

On Appeal From [2022] HKCFI 1998

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 19 OF 2023

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 27 OF 2019)

____________________

____________________

____________________

DECISION

____________________

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

1.On 18 August 2023, this Court handed down decision ([2023] HKCA 981) dismissing the applicant’s application to extend time to appeal an order of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 7 July 2022 refusing her application for leave to apply for judicial review in respect of her non‑refoulement claim.

2.On 24 August 2023, the applicant filed a notice of motion applying for leave to appeal this Court’s order to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant has also lodged written submission within time.

3.Having considered the applicant’s documents, 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.

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

5.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.

6.The notice of motion stated that (quoted verbatim) :

‘ I would like to infomr the Honourable Court that there is some error in law in my decision. Decision maker just relied on COL Information and my previous facts which were in favour while rejecting my claim. Acual life occur different situation then what is mentioned in COL Information. The Officer and cours prefers to ignore the overwheming of the evidence of this violence towards minorities searching for unrealistic silver lining. The Decision is betray a bias and formula approach unlikely fairly access the danger of my life and clearly not reasonable.’

7.In the applicant’s written submission, the following was stated in summary :

1)  It is the applicant’s fundamental right not to be subjected to torture: ST v Director of Immigration [2014] 4 HKLRD 277;

2)  The Decision has a significant effect on the applicant’s torture claim;

3)  High standards of fairness is required for determining torture claims: Secretary for Security v Prabakar [2005] 1 HKLRD 289;

4)  Appropriate standard of fairness depends on an examination of all aspects relating to the decision in question: R v Home Secretary ex parte Doody [1994] 1 AC 531 at 560D‑G;

5)  The applicant’s life and limb are in jeopardy and high standard of fairness must be demanded;

6)  The Court should not usurp the function of the Secretary;

7)  The Court should determine non-refoulement cases with anxious scrutiny and rigorous examination: R v Home Secretary, Ex-Parte Bugdaycay [1987] 1 AC 514 at 531E-G;

8)  The applicant should be given every reasonable opportunity to establish his claim;

9)  The Adjudicator did not properly assess the applicant’s credibility;

10)  The Court has the power to interfere in a public body’s decision if it is Wednesbury unreasonable;

11)  The modified Wednesbury test is that of beyond the range of responses open to reasonable decision-maker: R v Ministry of Defense ex.p. Smith; and

12)  ;Late filing of notice of appeal to the Board may only take account of statement of reason and any other relevant matter: section 37ZT.

8.We are of the view that 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.

Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person