RE BALAGOT CHRISTINE RAFANAN

CACV 282/2025, [2026] HKCA 373

On Appeal From [2025] HKCA 1071

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 282 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 3721 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.  On 9 December 2025, 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 5 December 2025 (“the Judgment”)  ([2025] HKCA 1071). In the Judgment, we dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims)  Philips Wong (“the Judge”)  dated 2 May 2025, by which the Judge dismissed her application for leave to apply for judicial review ([2025] HKCFI 1785).

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 about the lack of legal and language assistance before the Board and the Court.  She claimed that the Board’s Decision and the Leave Decision were irrational as the Board only relied on generic or incomplete Country of Origin information without assessment of her specific circumstances.  She asserted that she would face real danger upon refoulement and that the Board and the Judge failed to provide adequate reasons for rejecting her claim.

5.  Pursuant to Practice Direction 2.1, the applicant lodged written submissions on 23 December 2025.  In those submissions, she claimed that the Judgment made no logical sense and that given her lack of language and legal assistance as well as the legal procedural complexity, she failed to properly present her case.

6.  In our view, the applicant’s application is plainly devoid of merit.  Her assertions are all vague, bare and unsupported by any specific particular or evidence.  General assertions of her fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].  Her allegations are also a mere regurgitation of those submissions she had previously made before this court in her appeal, which we had already considered and rejected: see [3] - [12] of the Judgment. She did not identify any specific error in the Judgment.  It is well established that the Court of Appeal will not allow an application of this nature to be deployed as an occasion for re-running the arguments which had already been canvassed at the appeal: Ho Sin Ying v Chan Yui Ling & Another (unreported, CACV 221/2013, 14 November 2014)  at [2] and [3].  Clearly, 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.  Accordingly, the Notice of Motion filed on 9 December 2025 is dismissed.