SRI-RAHAYU AND OTHERS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CACV 112/2023, [2024] HKCA 314

On Appeal From [2024] HKCA 65

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 112 OF 2023

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2102 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon G Lam JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”). The applicants’ claims for non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong were rejected by the Director of Immigration and by the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”). Their application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision was dismissed by the Court of First Instance. Their appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court in our judgment dated 15 January 2024.

2.  By Notice of Motion filed on 20 February 2024 by the 1^st applicant on behalf of herself and the 2^nd and 3^rd applicants, the applicants seek leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA.  In that document the 1^st applicant stated that the court was incorrect in failing to apply the “principle of procedural unfairness” and “principle of irrationality” to the decision of the Director.  It is said that the decision-maker solely relied on country of origin information and the previous facts and that the real-life situations are different.  It is further said that their lives would be in danger and that they would killed or harmed upon their return to their country.

3.  In the written submissions lodged by the 1^st applicant on behalf of herself and also the 2^nd and 3^rd applicants, the 1^st applicant reiterated her case for non-refoulement protection and set out certain general propositions of law or quotations from cases, statutes, the Basic Law and international conventions without any particulars as to how they apply to the present case. 

4.  There is no reason for us to depart from the usual practice of determining an application for leave to appeal on the basis of the available materials without an oral hearing, as set out in paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1.

5.  The application was made beyond the 28-day time limit prescribed by law.  But the reason we consider that this application ought to be dismissed is that the applicants have not shown that the intended appeal raises any question which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the CFA for decision (which is the condition for giving leave to appeal under section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484), and also that they have failed to show any prospects of success in the intended appeal.

6.  Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.