MORI DELLIA SIGAYLI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 270/2023, [2024] HKCA 706

On Appeal from [2024] HKCA 17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 270 OF 2023

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 284 OF 2019)

_______________

_______________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Hon Ng J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  By a judgment dated 12 January 2024 ([2024] HKCA 17) (“the Judgment”), this court dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the Deputy Judge”) dated 18 August 2023 ([2023] HKCFI 2138) (“the Decision”), whereby the Deputy Judge refused her application for leave to apply for judicial review.

2.  On 22 January 2024, the Applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against the Judgment.

3.  The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as this court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in the Judgment. We will not repeat them here. After reviewing the Notice of Motion, we see no reason to deviate from the usual practice to consider this application on paper pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1.

4.  Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484 (“the HKCFAO”) provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of this court or the Court of Final Appeal if the question involved in the appeal is one which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision.

5.  In her Notice of Motion, the Applicant merely stated:

“I would like to reject and review the decision made by the court. They disregard my dangerous situation.”

6.  Pursuant to Practice Direction 2.1, the Applicant lodged her written submissions on 5 February 2024. In those submissions, she alleged that the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) failed to grasp the local context in her home country and the Country of Origin Information (“COI”) and other general reports were inadequate to understand the local context. Accordingly, the Board’s assessment was erroneous and the procedure was problematic. She further quoted a human rights report of 2022 produced by the US Department of State that there were unlawful killings by police and armed individuals in the Philippines. The Applicant also mentioned her brother was gunned down on 24 October 2023 showing that the Philippines were unsafe and dangerous.

7.  In our view, the Applicant’s intended appeal is plainly devoid of merits. General assertions of her fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6]. More importantly, her principal complaints are directed at the Board. The matters set out in the Notice of Motion and the written submissions fail to engage with the reasons given in the Judgment for dismissing her appeal and do not pinpoint any specific error in or raise any discernible grounds for disturbing the Judgment. Importantly, the Applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance or indeed any other reason why her case ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for determination on the basis of the “or otherwise” limb as required by section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.

8.  Accordingly, we refuse to give leave to the Applicant to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The Notice of Motion is hereby dismissed.