RIRIS TANTI WILUJENG AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CAMP 184/2024, [2025] HKCA 721

On Appeal From [2024] HKCFI 1231

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 184 OF 2024

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 285 OF 2019)

____________

____________

_________________

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 29 May 2025.

2.  By Notice of Motion filed on 4 June 2025, the applicants seek leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA. In that document the applicants stated that the 2^nd applicant was born out of wedlock and risked facing persecution upon refinement to their home country and that they both faced risks to life. It was also stated that the authorities of their country would not be able to protect them from their enemies.

3.  In their written submissions lodged on 11 June 2025, the applicants assert that their fear of harm continues and that the Director of Immigration and the Board failed to consider and give proper weight to relevant considerations and materials.

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 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.

6.  Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.