RE LAPANATI YULAS

CACV 620/2020

[2021] HKCA 1240

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 620 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1959 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

Hon B Chu J (giving the Decision of the Court) :

1)  Leave to appeal to Court of Final Appeal

1.1   On 10 June 2021, this Court handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 12 November 2020 in which he refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review.

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

1.3   The applicant now applies, by a notice of motion dated 22 July 2021 (“Notice of Motion”), for leave to appeal out of time, against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.

1.4   The applicant stated in her affirmation of 22 July 2021 that she did not get “the letter”. Presumably, the letter she referred to was the letter sent to her on 10 June 2021 by the Registrar of the High Court enclosing a copy of our judgment. The letter was sent to the address of the applicant which was confirmed by her during the hearing before us.  There was no proper explanation or any valid reason as to why she did not receive it.

1.5   On 22 July 2021, the applicant signed an acknowledgment of receipt of the directions given to her by the Registrar of Civil Appeal including that she should on or before 5 August 2021 lodge with the court 2 sets of written submissions to support her Notice of Motion.  She only lodged her written submissions on 19 August 2021 with no explanations as to why she was late.

1.6   In her Notice of Motion, all the applicants stated was that the Director of Immigration and the Torture Claims Appeal Board rejected her claim, and that the High Court and the Court of Appeal dismissed her leave to apply for judicial review. She said she wanted to go to the Court of Final Appeal for justice.  No grounds were stated by her in the Notice of Motion.  In her written submissions, she repeated amongst other things, that she was a Muslim and married a Christian man and converted to be a Christian, and that her own family members and villagers wanted to kill her. She said in Indonesia, religious faith is a big matter.

2)  Legal principles

2.   Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) (‘HKCFAO’) 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.

3)  Our view

3.1   The matters stated by the applicant in her Notice of Motion do not constitute grounds for granting leave 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 in accordance with section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO. Nor is there any such question apparent to us from what is stated by the applicant in the Notice of Motion. 

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

4)  Disposition

4.   For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 22 July 2021 is dismissed.

Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person

CACV 620/2020

[2021] HKCA 810

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 620 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1959 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon B Chu J (giving the Judgment of the Court) :

1)  The appeal

1. This is an appeal by the applicant against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan in which he refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review.

2)  Factual background

2.1 The applicant is a national of Indonesia.  She came to Hong Kong as a foreign domestic helper. She did not return to Indonesia upon the expiry of her employment contract and she overstayed. She raised her non-refoulement claim by written submission on 21 May 2014.

2.2 The basis of the applicant’s claim is that she would be harmed or killed by her husband, parents or villagers as they have on a number of occasions physically attacked her.

3)  The Director’s Decision

3. The Director of Immigration (‘the Director’) decided against the applicant’s torture claim on 29 December 2017.  The decision covered Bill of Rights Article 3 (torture/inhuman treatment) risk (‘BOR 3’), Bill of Rights Article 2 (right to life) risk (‘BOR 2’) as well as other statutory and convention rights against torture and persecution (‘the Director’s Decision’).

4)  The Board’s Decision

4.1 The applicant appealed against the Director’s Decision to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (‘the Board’) on 11 January 2018. After a hearing held on 4 June 2018, the applicant’s claim was dismissed by the Board on 12 September 2018.

4.2 The Board held that the applicant did not provide an entirely credible account. She has been consistent on some aspects while being inconsistent with other aspects. The Board found that the applicant was inconsistent with aspects that were significant. It held that the applicant was unable to explain how the husband was able to locate her more than 2000 km away. There was inconsistent account of the threats that the husband purported to inflict on her parents. The Board does not accept that the husband travelled long distance to harass the applicant’s parents. Internal relocation was possible. The Board does not accept that the applicant will be harmed in Indonesia just because she was Catholic. There were no substantial grounds showing the applicant will be subjected to torture if refouled.

5)  Decision of the Judge

5.1 The applicant filed her Form 86, seeking for leave for judicial review on 18 September 2018. In her supporting affirmation, the applicant repeated her claim that her life was in danger.

5.2 On 12 November 2020, the Judge held that there were no grounds provided from the applicant on her intended judicial review challenge. He held that there was an absence of showing of any error from the Board. There was no reasonable basis to challenge the decision of the Board.   

6)  Grounds of appeal

6.1 Doing the best that we could read from the applicant’s notice of appeal, she stated that the Board disregarded her dangerous situation.

6.2 Doing the best that we could read from the applicant’s written submissions, the applicant repeated factual allegations of her case. She stated that it was ‘funny’ that the Board rejected her case. She asked for justice.

7)  Our view

7.1 We are of the view that the applicant’s appeal is without merits.  The applicant provided no reasonably arguable grounds for judicial review.  An appeal against refusal of leave for judicial review is not an occasion for the applicant to regurgitate arguments already advanced.  The Court of Appeal would only reverse the decision of the Judge if it could be demonstrated that there were errors in law, that the Judge failed to take into account relevant matters, or the decision was otherwise plainly wrong: see United Muslim Association of Hong Kong v Yusuf Yu[2018] HKCA 451 at [38] and [39]. 

7.2 It is thus incumbent on the applicant to point out with sufficient particularity the errors allegedly committed by the Deputy Judge in assessing the Board’s Decision.

7.3 We see no basis to disturb the Deputy Judge’s Decision. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Applicant, unrepresented, appearing in person