RE SAINI

CACV 194/2025, [2026] HKCA 1341

On Appeal From [2026] HKCA 46

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 194 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 103 OF 2020)

_______________

_______________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

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

1.  On 26 January 2026, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against this court’s judgment of 19 January 2026 (“the Judgment”) ([2026] HKCA 46).  In the Judgment, we dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Michael Wong (“the Judge”) dated 2 April 2025, by which the Judge refused her application for leave to apply for judicial review ([2025] HKCFI 1277).

2.  The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as this court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in the Judgment.  We will not repeat them here.  After reviewing the Notice of Motion, we see no reason to deviate from the usual practice to consider this application on paper pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1.

3.  Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484) (“the HKCFAO”) provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of this court or the Court of Final Appeal if 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.

4.  In her Notice of Motion, the applicant complained that this Court erred in law for not applying the principles of procedural unfairness and irrationality and that actual life occurred differently than those mentioned in the Country of Origin information.  She further claimed that she would be killed or harmed upon refoulement.

5.  Contrary to Practice Direction 2.1, the applicant failed to lodge any written submissions in support of her application.

6.  In our view, the applicant’s application is plainly devoid of merit.  Her assertions are all vague, bare and unsupported by any particulars or evidence.  General assertions of fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].  She has not identified error with specific particulars in the Judgment.  Her assertions do not constitute proper grounds of appeal.

7.  Further and in any event, even taking them at their highest, her allegations remain fact-specific and do not relate to any question of great general or public importance.

8.  Accordingly, the applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.

9.  For these reasons, the applicant’s intended appeal has no merit and we dismiss the Notice of Motion.