|
CACV 400/2024, [2025] HKCA 252
On Appeal From [2024] HKCFI 2501
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 400 OF 2024
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1955 OF 2019)
____________________
| RE: |
NURUL SUPADI |
Applicant |
____________________
| Before : |
Hon Cheung JA and Cheng J in Court |
| Date of Judgment : |
13 March 2025 |
____________________
JUDGMENT
____________________
Hon Cheung JA (giving the Judgment of the Court) :
1) The appeal
1. This is an appeal by the applicant against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Reuden Lai of 16 September 2024 in which he refused to grant leave to her to apply for judicial review.
2. This appeal was scheduled to be heard on 7 January 2025. Despite the directions from the High Court to the applicant dated 31 October 2024 (‘Directions’), the applicant failed to lodge written submission by the stipulated time. Accordingly by [5] of the Directions, the hearing of the appeal was vacated and the Court will now deal with this appeal on paper.
2) Background
3. The applicant is a national of Indonesia. She allegedly entered Hong Kong on 9 January 2016. The applicant was permitted to remain as a foreign domestic helper until October 2017 or two weeks after termination of contract whichever being earlier. The applicant’s contract prematurely terminated and she overstayed since July 2016. She made a non‑refoulement claim in April 2017[1].
4. The basis of the applicant’s claim is that she would be harmed or killed by her husband because she did not send enough money to him[2].
5. The background facts have been summarized in the decision of the Judge at [4] to [12].
3) The Director’s Decision
6. The Director of Immigration (‘the Director’) decided against the applicant’s non-refoulement claim on 31 January 2018. The decision covered Bill of Rights Article 2 (right to life) risk (‘BOR 2’), Bill of Rights Article 3 (torture/inhuman treatment) risk (‘BOR 3’), as well as other statutory and convention rights against torture and persecution[3] (‘the Director’s Decision’).
4) The Board’s Decision
7. The applicant appealed against the Director’s Decision to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (‘the Board’)[4]. The applicant was absent on the date of the Board’s hearing, and after the applicant’s failure in providing reasonable explanation for her failure to attend the hearing[5], the Board dismissed the applicant’s appeal on 18 June 2019 (‘the Board’s Decision’).
8. The Board’s finding is summarized in the decision of the Judge at [24] to [30].
5) Decision of the Judge
9. The applicant filed her Form 86 and affirmation and did not set out grounds for judicial review. See the decision of the Judge at [34], [36].
10. The Judge held that the applicant did not provide particulars or specifics in her Form 86 or affirmation or submissions or at Court hearing as to how the Board erred in its decision, or how there was procedural unfairness. See the decision of the Judge at [42].
6) Grounds of appeal
11. The applicant in the notice of appeal stated the following :
‘ I would like to reject and review the Decision made by the Court and TCAB they disregard our dangerous situation.’
7) Our view
12. We are of the view that the applicant’s appeal is without merits. Her grounds of appeal consist of bare allegations without particulars or specifics. The applicant provided no reasonably arguable grounds for judicial review. An appeal against refusal of leave for judicial review is not an occasion for the applicant to regurgitate arguments already advanced. The Court of Appeal would only reverse the decision of the Judge if it could be demonstrated that there were errors in law, that the Judge failed to take into account relevant matters, or the decision was otherwise plainly wrong : see United Muslim Association of Hong Kong v Yusuf Yu [2018] HKCA 451 at [38] and [39].
13. It is thus incumbent on the applicant to point out with sufficient particularity the errors allegedly committed by the Judge in assessing the Board’s Decision. None of the arguments raised by the applicant shows the Judge has made any error of law.
14. We see no basis to disturb the Judge’s decision. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
(Peter Cheung)
Justice of Appeal |
(Yvonne Cheng)
Judge of the
Court of First Instance |
| Applicant, unrepresented, appearing in person |
[1] Director’s Decision at [1], [7] to [9];
[2] Ibid at [2];
[3] Ibid at [10]-[11];
[4] Board’s Decision at [5];
[5] Board’s Decision at [7] to [14];
|