RE AKINCHANG BENEDICTA BALINGAO

CACV 43/2024, [2026] HKCA 264

On appeal from [2024] HKCFI 286

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 43 OF 2024

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 1973 OF 2019)

----------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.  On 11 June 2024, this court (Barma JA and Lisa Wong J) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung given on 30 January 2024 refusing leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dismissing her appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting her non‑refoulement claim.

2.  The facts and issues in the applicant’s appeal, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment.[1]  We will not repeat them here.  

3.  The applicant subsequently applied, by a Notice of Motion filed on 18 June 2024, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the applicant contended that the decisions below were reached as a result of “error[s] of law” and that her life would still be in danger should she be refouled.

4.  In her written submissions lodged on 28 June 2024, the applicant submitted that this court “did not follow the high standard fairness or provide opportunity for [her] claim” and that the court “did not focus [on her] fear for which [her] life would be in danger”.  

5.  Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on the papers.  We have, therefore, determined the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents filed.

6.  The matters stated by the applicant do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484.  Nor is any such question apparent to us from the matters she has raised.

7.  The Notice of Motion fails to identify any supposed error in our judgment and the matters stated therein raise no ground that is reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.

8.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

9.  For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 18 June 2024 is dismissed.