RANA MONI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 57/2025, [2026] HKCA 891

On Appeal from [2025] HKCA 884

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 57 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2402 OF 2019)

________________________

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

Hon Cheng J (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 Nepalese national 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 10 October 2025 (“theJudgment”).

2.  By Notice of Motion filed on 31 December 2025, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against the Judgment to the CFA, and an extension of time to file her Notice of Motion for that purpose.  In that document, the applicant states that she did not receive the Judgment at her address for service and was unable to file the Notice of Motion within the time limit.  The applicant’s intended grounds of judicial review include whether the Board relied on selective country of origin information, whether it reasonably connected accepted facts to its conclusions on risk and credibility, whether its findings on internal relocation and state protection were reasonable, and whether her delay in making her claim was properly assessed.  The applicant further stated that there was a lack of language and legal assistance in preparation of her case, that her stress and medical condition should have been considered, and that an oral hearing should be arranged.

3.  The applicant lodged written submissions which were received by the Court on 14 January 2026.  Those submissions essentially reproduced her reasons for delay and her grounds stated in the Notice of Motion.     

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 first note that the address to which the copy of the Judgment was posted omitted to state a street number, although the building name was given, and the letter was not returned undelivered.

6.  Even if the Applicant did not receive a copy of the Judgment, we do not consider that an extension of time for filing of the Notice of Motion should be granted, given that 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.

7.  Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.