RE PRASTIWI

CACV 276/2024, [2025] HKCA 666

On Appeal From [2024] HKCFI 1726

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 276 OF 2024

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1565 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________________

DECISION

________________________

Hon Cheung JA (giving the Decision of the Court)  :

I. Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal

1.  On 25 October 2024, this Court (Cheung JA and Lisa Wong J)  handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 4 July 2024 in which he refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review.

2.  The facts and issues of the appeal as well as the Court’s reasons for dismissing it are set out in our judgment.  We will not repeat them here.

3.  The applicant now applies, by a notice of motion filed on 5 November 2024, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant stated in her notice of motion the following in summary :

1)  The Torture Claims Appeal Board (‘the Board’)  and the Director of Immigration did not consider the reason why she does not return to her home country.  It is because her enemies would kill her if they found out that she has returned;

2)  The applicant’s claim under BOR 2 and BOR 3 is very realistic and her fear is genuine;

3)  They failed to consider the Country of Origin condition of her country.

4.  The applicant’s written submissions consist entirely of general statements of law and bald assertions to procedural unfairness.

II.  Our view

5.  Under section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484)  (‘Ordinance’)  leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal will only be granted if the question to be determined involves great general or public importance or otherwise ought to be determined by the Court of Final Appeal.

6.  The matters stated by the applicant in her notice of motion and written submissions are broad and vague assertions that do not pertain to nor explain and elaborate on the particular circumstances of the applicant.  A challenge to findings of fact is within the province of the Board.  In any event, the matters stated 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 in accordance with section 22(1)(b)  of the Ordinance.  Nor is there any such question apparent to us from the matters raised by the applicant. 

7.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b)  of the Ordinance.

III.  Disposition

8.  For these reasons, the notice of motion dated 5 November 2024 is dismissed.