SYARIFAH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 34/2023, [2023] HKCA 725

On Appeal From [2023] HKCA 635

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 34 OF 2023

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 3581 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________________

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 applicant is an Indonesian national 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 extension of time to apply for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision and her application for such leave were dismissed by the Court of First Instance. Her appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court in our judgment dated 5 May 2023.

2.  By Notice of Motion filed on 9 May 2023, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA.  In that document the applicant simply stated that she would like to have her case reviewed.

3.  Despite having acknowledged the directions for written submissions to be lodged with the court by 23 May 2023, the applicant has not to date lodged any submissions for the present application.  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.

4.  It seems to us that this application ought to be dismissed because the applicant has wholly failed to show 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 she has failed to show any prospects of success in the intended appeal.

5.  Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.