RE DENIK WINDARTI

CAMP 451/2022, [2026] HKCA 313

On appeal from [2022] HKCFI 1012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 451 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 77 OF 2019)

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

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

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.  On 15 November 2023, this court (Chu VP and Barma JA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of DHCJ KW Lung (“the Judge”) dated 20 April 2022 refusing to grant 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 application, 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 17 November 2023, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the applicant merely stated that she “did not get justice” and that she wanted to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

4.  In her written submissions lodged on 1 December 2023, the applicant merely repeated the procedural background to her case and asked for leave to “go to the Court of Final Appeal”.

5.  Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion and written submissions, 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.  For completeness, we should mention that by a letter received by this court on 27 August 2024, the applicant informed that she was now detained at the Castle Peak Bay Immigration Centre, that she would like to “close all [her] non-refoulement claims” and “cancel [her] JR”, and that it was now safe for her to return to her home country.

7.  We have nonetheless considered the merits of the application.

8.  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.

9.  The Notice of Motion failed to provide any particulars in the supposed errors in our judgment and it raises no ground that is reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.

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

11.  For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 17 November 2023 is dismissed.