BOOL LORENZA ATIENZA AND OTHERS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 320/2023, [2025] HKCA 618

On appeal from [2023] HKCFI 2487

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 320 OF 2023

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 925 OF 2019)

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Kwan VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is the applicants’ Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal handed down on 13 December 2024 ([2024] HKCA 1154). The Court of Appeal rejected the appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung dated 10 October 2023 refusing to grant leave for the applicants to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) concerning their non-refoulement claims.

2.  The 4^th applicant became of age at the time when this application was taken out.

3.  Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, the Registrar of Civil Appeals had directed that the Notice of Motion shall be determined on paper without an oral hearing. The applicants lodged their written submissions on 6 January 2025. They also enclosed the 1^st applicant’s medical appointment record, the 3^rd applicant’s medical record, as well as a letter from the Philippines purportedly written by “Sister and Brother Joriel” in Tagalog stating, among other things, that it is dangerous for the applicants to return to their home country (the translation prepared by a Tagalog translator engaged by the Court Language Section was provided to us). Having considered the written submissions and the papers, we think it is appropriate to determine this application on paper and proceed to do so.

Grounds of appeal

4.  The applicants attached their grounds of appeal in the Notice of Motion which are substantially the same as the ones they put forward in the appeal before the Court of Appeal. The same grounds are repeated in their written submissions.

Analysis and disposition

5.  Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484) provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, from any judgment of the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter, whether final or interlocutory, 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.

6.  The applicants submitted some new evidence but did not apply for leave to adduce such new evidence in the present application. Even if the Court of Appeal were to consider the new evidence on a de bene esse basis, as explained in our judgment dated 13 December 2024, the expressed health concerns are not proper grounds. Besides, the self-serving letter purportedly written by “Sister and Brother Joriel” does not constitute sufficient and reliable evidence to refute the Board’s findings.

7.  We have already duly considered the applicants’ grounds in the appeal and given reasons for rejecting them in our judgment of 13 December 2024. In the present application, the applicants failed to identify any particular mistakes in our decision, nor did they identify any question of great general or public importance which ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for determination in accordance with section 22(1)(b). There is also no basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).

8.  For the above reasons, we dismiss the Notice of Motion filed on 23 December 2024.