LUSY MERI MARIA BERTOLES AND OTHERS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CAMP 426/2022, [2023] HKCA 849

On Appeal From [2023] HKCA 410

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 426 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1445 OF 2018)

____________

____________

_________________

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 applicants’ claims for non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong were rejected by the Director of Immigration and by the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”). Their application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision was dismissed by the Court of First Instance. Their application for extension of time to appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court in our judgment dated 28 March 2023.

2.  By Notice of Motion filed on 16 June 2023, the applicants seek leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA.  In that document the applicants stated that they were not satisfied with the Director’s and the Board’s decisions, that the courts did not grant them leave for judicial review, and that they wanted to go to the CFA.  The accompanying affidavit made by the 1^st applicant said she failed to submit the application on time, but did not provide an explanation for the omission.

3.  Despite having acknowledged receipt of the Registrar of Civil Appeals’ directions for written submissions to be lodged, the applicants have not to date filed any written submissions in support of their Notice of Motion.

4.  There is no reason for us to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind 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 applicants have 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 they have failed to show any prospects of success in the intended appeal.  Further, the Notice of Motion was filed much longer than 28 days after our judgment, contrary to the requirement in section 24 of the Ordinance, and the delay has not been explained.

6.  Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.