ANNI NURIL HAMDATI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 1241/2025, [2026] HKCA 1583

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 6322

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 1241 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2096 OF 2023)

________________________

________________________

_____________________

JUDGMENT

_____________________

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

1.  On 19 December 2025, 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 April 2023, whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 24 December 2021 rejecting her non-refoulement claim.

2.  On 17 March 2026, 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 8 April 2026, the Applicant applies for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant alleges generally that there are some errors in the decisions of the decision-makers who relied on some “web news” which were not officially recognized, and her claim was not investigated properly or determined fairly.

4.  In her written submissions dated 22 April 2026, the Applicant complains about the lack of legal and language assistance.  She also makes some general complaints about procedural unfairness, and alleges that the Respondent’s decision was unreasonable or irrational, and the authorities acted in a discriminatory manner towards non-refoulement claimants.

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.  The complaint about lack of legal and language assistance is a new point which was not raised in the Applicant’s appeal.  There is no good reason to allow the Applicant to raise this complaint for the first time in the present application.  In any event, it has no merit.  It is well established that a non-refoulement claimant is not absolutely entitled to legal and language assistance at all times that he/she wishes to have such assistance.  The other complaints raised by the Applicant are all general complaints without particulars.  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.