|
CACV 572/2024, [2025] HKCA 992
On Appeal From [2025] HKCA 501
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 572 OF 2024
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 2210 OF 2019)
-----------------------------------
| RE: |
SRI SETIYANI |
Applicant |
-----------------------------------
| Before: |
Hon Chow JA and Cheng J in Court |
| Date of Judgment: |
13 November 2025 |
___________________
J U D G M E N T
___________________
Hon Cheng J (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. On 5 June 2025, this court (Chow JA and Cheng J) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung given on 17 December 2024 refusing leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dismissing her appeal from the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting her non-refoulement claim.
2. The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment.[1] We will not repeat them here.
3. The applicant subsequently applied, by a Notice of Motion filed on 25 June 2025, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, she states that the decision of the High Court is unreasonable, and she wants to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.
4. The applicant failed to lodge any written submissions with this Court as directed by the Registrar of Civil Appeals. She is thus deemed to have abandoned her right to rely on written submissions, and we have therefore determined the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents filed.
5. The matters stated by the applicant do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484. Nor is any such question apparent to us from the matters she has raised.
6. The Notice of Motion does not identify any supposed error in our judgment and they raise no ground that is reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.
7. We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).
8. For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 25 June 2025 is dismissed.
(Anderson Chow)
Justice of Appeal
|
(Yvonne Cheng)
Judge of the Court of
First Instance
|
The applicant acting in person
|