RE MUNTIANIK YUSUF AND ANOTHER

CACV 323/2024, [2025] HKCA 527

On appeal from [2024] HKCFI 1885

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 323 OF 2024

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1180 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Chu VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  On 8 April 2025, this court handed down our judgment ([2025] HKCA 317)  dismissing the 1^st and 2^nd applicants’ appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Lung given on 29 July 2024 refusing to give them leave to apply for judicial review in respect of their non-refoulement claims.

2.  On 16 April 2025, the applicants filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal this court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  The 1^st applicant has lodged a written submission on behalf of herself and the 2^nd applicant to support the application.

3.  Having considered the Notice of Motion and written submission, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on paper without an oral hearing.  We have therefore proceeded to determine the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents in the case.

4.  The background to this case and the applicants’ claims have been set out in our judgment.  We will not repeat them.

5.  Section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484, provides that leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal may be granted 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.

6.  The Notice of Motion contends that the applicants’ lives are in danger and they will be killed if they return to their home country.

7.  In the written submission, the 1^st applicant adds that she was tortured by her enemy while in Indonesia, and she is a genuine non-refoulement claimant but she has been unable to bring all the related documents from her country.  She also complains that the Director of Immigration and the Non-refoulement Claims Appeal Board had not properly scrutinized her claim, and the Board did not give her sufficient chance to arrange for relevant evidence and had relied on unofficial news and hearsay matters.  It is further argued that the court decision has a significant impact on her torture claim, and the judge was wrong for (i)  not applying the principles of irrationality and procedural unfairness and also the high standard of fairness, (ii)  not applying care despite the serious problem faced by her and she had submitted all the proofs, (iii)  not analysing their claims properly.  

8.  We are of the view that what has been put forward by the applicants do not constitute viable grounds for giving leave to appeal. Importantly, no question of great general or public importance has been identified as required by section 22(1)(b)  of the Ordinance.  The matters contended in the Notice of Motion and the written submission all pertain to the personal circumstances of the applicants and their claims.  Further, they do not engage our reasons for dismissing the appeal (see [18] to [23] of our judgment)  and fail to show any error in our decision.  We also do not see any basis for the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

9.  Accordingly, we dismiss the Notice of Motion.