Re Elawati

CAMP 384/2022, [2024] HKCA 1175

On an intended appeal from [2022] HKCFI 2064

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 384 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 679 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.On 29 March 2023, this court (Cheung JA and Barma JA)  handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of DHCJ KW Lung dated 8 July 2022 refusing to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dismissing her appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting her non-refoulement claim.

2.The facts and issues in the applicant’s application, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment.[1]  We will not repeat them here.

3.The applicant subsequently applied, by a Notice of Motion filed on 24 April 2023, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the applicant stated that she “did not get justice” and that she wanted to “go to the Court of Final Appeal”.

4.In breach of the directions by the Registrar of Civil Appeals, the applicant failed to lodge any written submissions with the court.  She is therefore debarred from lodging and relying on the same.

5.Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on the papers.  We have, therefore, determined the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents filed.  

6.The matters stated by the applicant do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine, as required by section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484.  Nor is any such question apparent to us from the matters she has raised.

7.The Notice of Motion failed to provide any particulars in the supposed errors in our judgment and it raises no ground that is reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.  

8.We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b). 

9.For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 24 April 2023 is dismissed.  

The applicant acting in person