由此

A A

CACV 107/2021
B B
[2021] HKCA 1459
C C

D IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE D

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

E E
COURT OF APPEAL
F CIVIL APPEAL NO. 107 OF 2021 F

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 222 OF 2019)

G G

H H
RE: ISTAMAH Applicant
I I

J J
Before : Hon Cheung JA, B Chu J in Court
K K
Date of Decision : 7 October 2021
L L
 
M M

DECISION
N N

O O

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

P P

Q Q
1) Leave to appeal to Court of Final Appeal

R R
11 On 6 August 2021, this Court handed down a
S judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the S

decision of Deputy High Court Judge C P Pang of 4 March

T T

U U

V V
由此

A -2- A

B
B 2021 in which he refused to grant leave to the applicant to
apply for judicial review. C
C

1.2 The facts and issues in the appeal before the Court D
D

of Appeal, as well as the Court’s reasons for dismissing it, are

E
E
set out in our judgment. We will not repeat them here.
F
F
1.3 The applicant now applies, by a notice of motion
G
G dated 23 August 2021 (“Notice of Motion”), for leave to
appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. H
H

I
I 1.4 In her Notice of Motion, the applicant stated that
“there is some error in law in my decision. Decision maker J
J
just relied on COL Information and my previous facts which
K
K were in favor while rejecting my claim. Acual (sic) life occur
different situation then what is mentioned in COL Information. L
L
The Officer and cours (sic) prefers to ignore the overwheming
M
M (sic) of the evidence of this violence towards minorities
searching for unrealistic silver lining. The Decision is betrary N
N
(sic) a bias and formula approach unlikely fairly access the
O
O danger of my life and clearly not reasonable”.
P
P
1.5 The applicant further lodged written submissions on
6 September 2021. She referred to various authorities but did Q
Q

not state how those authorities applied to her case. She R

R
submitted that the Adjudicator acted in a procedurally unfair
S
S manner in dealing with her application and without properly
assessing her credibility. She submitted our judgment was T
T
unreasonable. She had referred to section 37ZT for late filing
U
U

V
V
由此

A -3- A

B
B of notice of appeal which is not applicable for her present
application. C
C

2) Legal principles D
D

E
E 2 Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of
Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) (‘HKCFAO’) leave to F
F
appeal to the Court of Final Appeal will only be granted if the
G
G question to be determined involves great general or public
importance or otherwise ought to be determined by the Court H
H
of Final Appeal.
I
I

3) Our view J
J

K
31 The matters stated by the applicant in her Notice of K

Motion do not constitute grounds for granting leave to the

L
L
Court of Final Appeal. The applicant has failed to identify

M any question of great general or public importance for the M

Court of Final Appeal to determine in accordance with section

N
N
22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO. Nor is there any such question

O apparent to us from what is stated by the applicant in the O

Notice of Motion.
P
P

3.2 We also do not see any basis for granting leave on Q

Q
the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).
R
R

S
S

T
T

U
U

V
V
由此

A -4- A

B
B 4) Disposition
C
C
4 For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated
23 August 2021 is dismissed. D
D

E
E

F
F

G
G

H
H

I
I

J
J
(Peter Cheung) (Bebe Pui Ying Chu)
K
K Justice of Appeal Judge of the Court
of First Instance
L
L

Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person M

M

N
N

O
O

P
P

Q
Q

R
R

S
S

T
T

U
U

V
V