RE ISMUWATI YULIANA AND OTHERS

CAMP 478/2022, [2023] HKCA 845

On Appeal From [2023] HKCA 616

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 478 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2768 OF 2018)

____________

____________

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

Hon G Lam JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”). The applicants’ 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”). Their application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision was dismissed by the Court of First Instance. Their application for extension of time to appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court in our judgment dated 12 May 2023.

2.  By Notice of Motion filed on 30 May 2023, the applicants seek leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA. In that document the applicants stated that they disagree with the decision-makers in their case who relied on Internet news sources which were not officially recognised.

3.  In the written submissions lodged on 16 June 2023, the applicants stated that the basic right of a litigant to understand the contents of the process judgment should not be deprived; that no assistant had been given to them with regard to their BOR 2 risk claim; that the Court of Appeal should investigate and correct the lack of sound judgment and fairness throughout the non-refoulement claim process; and that the courts and authorities had been negligent and failed to discharge their duty of care to non-refoulement claimants like them.

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 applicants have 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 because they have failed to show any prospects of success in the intended appeal.

6.  Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.