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

CACV 576/2024, [2026] HKCA 1205

On Appeal From [2024] HKCFI 3594

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 576 OF 2024

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1208 OF 2024)

________________________

_____________________

________________________

JUDGMENT

________________________

Hon Chow JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  On 20 December 2024, Deputy High Court Judge To made an order refusing to grant to the Applicant leave to apply for judicial review. The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 17 June 2024, whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 17 April 2024 rejecting her non-refoulement claim.

2.  On 24 June 2025, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the order of the Judge.  The basic facts of this case and the Court’s reasons for dismissing the Applicant’s appeal have been set out in the CA Judgment and will not be repeated here.

3.  By a Notice of Motion filed on 22 May 2026, the Applicant applied for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant alleged generally that (i) the Judge failed to apply the principle of irrationality to the decision made by the Director, (ii) there was some error of law in her decision, (iii) actual life situation was different from what was stated in the relevant country of origin information, and (iv) the Judge did not apply the law properly.  In her affirmation filed on the same date, the Applicant states that she understands that “there is a good ground of appeal that was not necessarily considered at the stage of applying for court of appeal” [sic], and she believes that the merits of this ground of appeal constitutes a sufficient reason or justification for the Court to “exercise its discretion in allowing this appeal”.

4.  In her written submissions dated 5 June 2026, the Applicant states some general principles concerning the assessment or determination of non-refoulement claims, but fails to explain how those principles are relevant or applicable to her case.

5.  Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, we determine the present application for leave to appeal on paper without an oral hearing.

6.  Under s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484, an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal in any civil cause or matter if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal (as the case may be), the question involved in the appeal is one which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision.

7.  There has been serious delay by the Applicant in making the present application.  No good or acceptable explanation has been given for the delay.  In any event, no question of great general or public importance involved in the intended appeal is identified in the Notice of Motion.  We are unable to see any such question being involved in the intended appeal.  The Applicant has not raised any viable ground of appeal against the CA Judgment.  We are satisfied that the intended appeal has no reasonable prospect of success.

8.  There is also no basis to grant leave to appeal on the “or otherwise” limb in s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance.

9.  Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is refused and the Notice of Motion is dismissed.