A A

B
CACV 31/2020 B
[2020] HKCA 813
C IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE C

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

D D
COURT OF APPEAL
E CIVIL APPEAL NO. 31 OF 2020 E

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2640 of 2018)

F F

G G
RE SUSANA Applicant
H H
________________________

I I
Before: Hon Cheung, Chu and Barma JJA in Court
J Date of Judgment: 12 October 2020 J

K ________________ K

L JUDGMENT L
________________
M M

N N

Hon Chu JA giving the Judgment of the Court:

O O

P 1. On 14 August 2020, this Court handed down our judgment1 P

dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High

Q Q
Court Judge Lung given on 7 January 2020 refusing her leave to apply for
R judicial review. R

S S

1
T [2020] HKCA 684. T

U U

V V
A - 2 - A

B
2. On 2 September 2020, the applicant filed a notice of motion to B
apply for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final
C C
Appeal. The applicant has also put in a letter dated 14 September 2020 in

D response to the Registrar of Civil Appeals’ direction to lodge written D

submission in support of the application.

E E

F 3. Having considered the applicant’s notice of motion and letter, F

we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining

G G
applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on paper
H without an oral hearing. We have therefore proceeded to determine the H

applicant’s application on the basis of the materials before us.

I I

J 4. The facts of this case have been set out in our judgment. We J

will not repeat them.

K K

L 5. Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal L

Ordinance, Cap. 484 provides that leave to appeal to the Court of Final
M M
Appeal may be granted if the question involved in the appeal is one which,
N by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to N

be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision.

O O

P 6. The notice of motion contained the following grounds of P

appeal:
Q Q
(1) The applicant still has problem in her country. If she
R returns, her life will become dangerous. The applicant R

was tortured by her ex-husband and had been

S S

T T

U U

V V
A - 3 - A

B
hospitalised. The loan shark is also looking for the B
applicant and will harm her.
C C
(2) The applicant never has a proper opportunity to explain

D her problem, and an oral hearing regarding her supporting D

documents, including hospital discharge certificate.

E E
(3) The applicant asks for a solution to save her life from her
F enemies. She hopes to live peacefully without problems. F

G G
7. In her letter, the applicant reiterated that she could not return
H to her country at this moment as her life would be in danger due to the H

threats from her ex-husband and his family. She stated that her ex-husband
I I
had once tried to kill her, and had tortured her many time before. In
J support of her case, the applicant attached a document to her letter which J

was in the Indonesian language. We had through the Court Language

K K
Section obtained an English translation prepared by an Indonesian
L translator. The document is a doctor certificate dated 16 August 2002 L

certifying that the applicant was examined on the same day and found to
M M
have bruises on her lower back and no treatment is needed.
N N

8. The grounds given in the notice of motion do not constitute

O O
viable grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.
P P

9. Importantly, the applicant has not identified any question of

Q Q
great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b).
R Further, all these grounds do not address this Court’s reasons for R

dismissing the appeal given in [12] to [14] of our judgment. It is also

S S
incorrect to say that the applicant has not been afforded a proper
T T

U U

V V
A - 4 - A

B
opportunity to explain her case. She was legally represented in the B
interview with the Department of Immigration. The Board as well as
C C
Deputy High Court Judge Lung had conducted oral hearings to hear her

D appeal and application. Her appeal to this Court was listed for an oral D

hearing, which was, however, vacated due to her failure to comply with the
E E
Court’s order to lodge written submission.
F F

10. Regarding the assertion of danger and threat to her safety if

G G
refouled, for the reasons we give in [12] and [13] of our judgment, this
H does not afford a basis for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final H

Appeal. As for the doctor certificate, it is unclear whether this was

I I
provided to the Director or to the Board. If it was not previously provided
J to the Director or the Board, as pointed out in [14] of our judgment, if the J

applicant wishes to rely on it, she can submit it to the Director of

K K
Immigration and seek a re-consideration of her claim.
L L

11. For the above reasons, the applicant’s intended appeal to the
M M
Court of Final Appeal is unarguable. We also do not see any basis for
N granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b). N

Accordingly, we dismiss the notice of motion.

O O

P P

Q Q

R R

(Peter Cheung) (Carlye Chu) (Aarif Barma)

S S
Justice of Appeal Justice of Appeal Justice of Appeal
T T

U U

V V
A - 5 - A

B
The applicant, unrepresented, acted in person. B

C C

D D

E E

F F

G G

H H

I I

J J

K K

L L

M M

N N

O O

P P

Q Q

R R

S S

T T

U U

V V