Re Casuga Jenilyn Dilim and Another

CACV 319/2023, [2024] HKCA 783

On Appeal From [2023] HKCFI 2611

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 319 OF 2023

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2969 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

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

I.  Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal

1.On 26 April 2024, this Court (Cheung JA and Lisa Wong J) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicants’ appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Anthony To given on 10 October 2023 in which he refused to grant extension of time for leave to the applicants to apply for judicial review.

2.The facts and issues of the appeal as well as the Court’s reasons for dismissing it are set out in our judgment. We will not repeat them here.

3.The applicants now apply, by a notice of motion filed on 3 May 2024, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicants stated in their notice of motion the following :

‘ I have a baby who born in Hong Kong who has no state but immigration or appeal board did not consider. Many young boys claim granted only for he/she born in Hong Kong. We want to go to Court of Final Appeal.’

4.The applicants stated in their written submissions in summary the following points :

1)  If the applicants return to their home country they will be killed;

2)  The Immigration Department, the Torture Claims Appeal Board, the Court of First Instance and Court of Appeal all dismissed the applicants’ claim; and

3)  The applicants represent the interest of all asylum seeker.

II.  Our view

5.Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) (‘Ordinance’) leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal will only be granted if the question to be determined involves great general or public importance or otherwise ought to be determined by the Court of Final Appeal.

6.The matters stated by the applicants in their notice of motion and written submissions are broad and vague assertions that do not pertain to nor explain and elaborate on the particular circumstances of the applicants. They are factual findings of fact that are within the province of the Board. In any event, the matters stated do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicants have failed to identify any question of great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine in accordance with section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance. Nor is there any such question apparent to us from the matters raised by the applicants.

7.We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance.

III.  Disposition

8.For these reasons, the notice of motion dated 3 May 2024 is dismissed.

Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person