RE SURATINAH AND ANOTHER

CACV 572/2021

[2023] HKCA 482

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 572 OF 2021

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1459 OF 2018)

____________________

____________________

_________________

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 are Indonesian nationals whose 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 appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court in our judgment dated 8 February 2023.

2.  By Notice of Motion filed on 6 March 2023, the applicants seek leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA.  In that document the applicants stated that the best interests of the 2^nd applicant have not been considered in the previous decisions and judgments.  Removing the 2^nd applicant to Indonesia would not be in his best interest, as he has no knowledge of the culture and language in Indonesia.

3.  The 1^st applicant has lodged written submissions on her own behalf and on behalf of the 2^nd applicant on 20 March 2023.  Those submissions, however, only repeat her arguments for the claim for non-refoulement protection, citing section 37ZO of the Immigration Ordinance.  Further, a document with the title “Grounds on which relief is sought” is attached to the submissions which set out general principles and allegations for judicial review without any direct reference to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

4.  There is no reason for us to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind 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.  As mentioned in our judgment, the 2^nd applicant’s case had been separately and specifically considered by the Board and by the Judge.  We do not think that simply asserting that it is not in his best interests to go to Indonesia gives rise to any ground of appeal or for judicial review.

6.  Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.