|
CACV 452/2024, [2025] HKCA 756
On Appeal From [2024] HKCFI 2768
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 452 OF 2024
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2049 OF 2019)
________________________
| RE: |
AKTER SONIA |
Applicant |
________________________
| Before: |
Hon Cheung JA and K Yeung J in Court |
| Date of Judgment: |
28 August 2025 |
________________________
J U D G M E N T
________________________
Hon K Yeung 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 KW Lung (the “Judge”) of 28 October 2024 in which he refused to grant leave to her to apply for judicial review (the “Judge’s Decision”).
2. This appeal was scheduled to be heard on 30 July 2025. Despite the directions from the Court to the applicant dated 9 June 2025 (the “Directions”), the applicant failed to lodge written submission by the stipulated time. Accordingly by [5] of the Directions, the hearing of the appeal was vacated and the Court will now deal with this appeal on paper.
2) Background
3. The applicant is a national of Bangladesh. She arrived in Hong Kong in August 2014 to work as a domestic helper. In September 2014 her employment contract was prematurely terminated and the applicant had overstayed since October 2014. She applied for non-refoulement protection in March 2015[1].
4. The basis of the applicant’s claim is that she would be harmed or killed by members of the Awami League because she was a member of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party[2].
5. The background facts have been summarized in the Judge’s Decision at [4] to [7].
3) The Director’s Decision
6. The Director of Immigration (the “Director”) decided against the applicant’s non-refoulement claim on 22 December 2017. The decision covered Bill of Rights Article 2 (right to life) risk, Bill of Rights Article 3 (torture/inhuman treatment) risk as well as other statutory and convention rights against torture and persecution[3] (the “Director’s Decision”).
4) The Board’s Decision
7. The applicant appealed/petitioned against the Director’s Decision to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “Board”)[4]. After a hearing held on 10 May 2019, the Board dismissed the applicant’s appeal/petition on 11 July 2019 (the “Board’s Decision”).
8. The Board’s finding is summarized in the Judge’s Decision at [10]-[12].
5) The Judge’s Decision
9. The applicant filed her Form 86 and affirmation on 18 July 2019. She raised various grounds in support of her application for judicial review. The Judge addressed them at [14] and [18] of the Judge’s Decision.
10. The Judge held that the applicant provided no valid ground to challenge the Board’s Decision. The applicant failed to show any realistic prospect of success in her proposed judicial review - see the Judge’s Decision at [19]-[20].
6) Grounds of appeal
11. The applicant in the notice of appeal stated the following (all mistakes being original) :
‘Respected high court I am not satisfied with ORDER I get from side of high court because they refuse my case so I want to appeal Judicial Review against my ORDER.’
7) Our view
12. We are of the view that the applicant’s appeal is without merits. The grounds of appeal consist of bare allegation with no particulars or specifics. 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].
13. It is thus incumbent on the applicant to point out with sufficient particularity the errors allegedly committed by the Judge in assessing the Board’s Decision. None of the grounds raised by the applicant shows that the Judge has made any error of law.
14. We see no basis to disturb the Judge’s Decision. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
| (Peter Cheung) |
(Keith Yeung) |
| Justice of Appeal |
Judge of the
Court of First Instance |
Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person
[1] Director’s Decision at [1] and [7];
[2] Board’s Decision at [3];
[3] Director’s Decision at [8]-[10];
[4] Board’s Decision at [13]; Judge’s Decision at [10].
|