SHAMINA FIROZ v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CACV 512/2024, [2026] HKCA 75

On Appeal From [2024] HKCFI 3245

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 512 OF 2024

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1236 OF 2020)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Andrew Chan J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”). The applicant is a national of India whose claim for non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong was rejected by the Director of Immigration and by the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”). Her application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision was dismissed by the Court of First Instance.[1] Her appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court in our judgment dated 26 September 2025.[2]

2.  By Notice of Motion filed on 30 September 2025, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA.  The applicant stated that she was not in agreement with the court’s decision and that her life would be in danger if she was to be returned back to her country. 

3.  In her written submissions lodged on 10 October 2025 and 15 October 2025, the applicant simply reiterated certain basic legal principles in handling torture claim applications without going into details and / or specifics.  The applicant stressed that she would face hardship if she was to be returned to her country and that the Board failed to seriously consider rape was an act of torture and / or act of persecution. 

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

5.  We take the view that this application ought to be dismissed because the applicant has 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 the applicant, in our view, has failed to show any prospects of success in the intended appeal.

6.  Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.