RUPASINGHA ARACHCHIGE SHIROMA THARANGANI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 11/2023, [2023] HKCA 1102

On Appeal From [2023] HKCA 596

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 11 OF 2023

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 335 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 a national of Sri Lanka 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 leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision was dismissed by the Court of First Instance. Her appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court in our judgment dated 12 May 2023.

2.  By Notice of Motion filed on 28 August 2023, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA.  In that document the applicant stated that her appeal had been dismissed without a hearing, and she needed the hearing to explain her real situation to the judges.  She said that the documents she submitted at the USM interview were disregarded by the Board and so she is seeking justice to protect her life.

3.  In her written submissions, the applicant states that her life is still threatened by her enemies.  As her appeal had been dismissed without an oral hearing, she requests an oral hearing.  She has attached to her submissions a document said to be the death certificate of her brother whom, she says, was killed by drug sellers.  She says that because the killers have connections with the police, they can do any harm to her life in Sri Lanka.

4.  There is no reason for us to depart from the usual practice of determining an application for leave to appeal 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 applicant has 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 she has failed to show any prospects of success in the intended appeal.  There is also a substantial unexplained delay in the present application beyond the 28-day time limit prescribed by section 24 of the Ordinance.

6.  Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.