SITI MAESAROH AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 102/2022

[2022] HKCA 1669

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 102 OF 2022

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2080 OF 2018)

________________________

_____________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Hon Chow JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  On 10 October 2022, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicants’ appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung dated 22 February 2022 refusing to grant leave to the Applicants to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 18 July 2018, whereby the Board dismissed the Applicants’ appeal against the decisions of the Director of Immigration dated 20 August 2015 and 5 December 2016.

2.  By Notice of Motion dated 17 October 2022, the Applicants applied for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the Applicants repeated the basis of their non-refoulement claims, but failed to identify any alleged errors in the CA Judgment.

3.  The Applicants’ written submissions dated 31 October 2022 likewise merely repeated the basis of their non-refoulement claims, but failed to identify any alleged errors in the CA Judgment.

4.  Under s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484, an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal in any civil cause or matter if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal (as the case may be), 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.  No question of great general or public importance involved in the proposed appeal is identified in the Notice of Motion. We are unable to see any such question being involved in the proposed appeal. We are satisfied that the intended appeal has no merits and no reasonable prospect of success. There is also no basis to grant leave to appeal on the “or otherwise” limb in s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance.

6.  Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is refused and the Notice of Motion is dismissed.

7.  For the avoidance of doubt, the non-compliance with Order 80 rule 2 of the Rules of the High Court, Cap 4A, in these proceedings is treated as a mere irregularity without rendering the 2^nd Applicant’s application a nullity.