NANCA WALLEN JAVIER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 194/2024, [2024] HKCA 1106

On Appeal From [2024] HKCFI 1114

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 194 OF 2024

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2242 OF 2023)

____________

____________

_________________

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 the Philippines 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 4 October 2024.

2.  By Notice of Motion filed on 10 October 2024, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA.  In that document the applicant simply claimed that the court disregarded her dangerous situation.

3.  In her written submissions lodged for the present application, the applicant stated that the decisions of the Director of Immigration and the Board were irrational and reached without taking into account rampant corruption in the law enforcement agencies in the Philippines and the risk that the applicant’s father and husband might be able to find and harm her even if she relocated to another part of the Philippines.

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.  Her criticisms of the decisions of the Director of Immigration and the Board respectively are not proper grounds of appeal against the judgment of this court.

6.  Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.