RE SRINGATIN

CACV 407/2023, [2026] HKCA 512

On Appeal from [2023] HKCFI 3064

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 407 OF 2023

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 1554 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.  On 30 April 2024, this court (Barma JA and Ng J)  handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge To given on 28 November 2023 refusing 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 appeal, 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 10 May 2024, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the applicant contended that:

“1. ⁠The learned Judges were wrong as a matter of law for not having applied the principle of irrationality to the decision made by the Director of Immigration/Torture Claims Appeal Board refusing my application for Judicial Review.

2.⁠ There is some error in law in my decision. The decision maker just relied on COL information and my previous facts, which were in favor of rejecting my claim.

3. ⁠Actual life occurs in different situations than COL information. Officers and courts prefer to ignore the overwhelming evidence of violence towards minorities, searching for unrealistic silver linings.

4.⁠  The Judge did not apply the law properly.”

4.  In her written submissions lodged on 22 May 2024, the applicant cited a number of cases and made generic submissions on the general principles of law related to non-refoulement claims, without advancing any argument against our Judgement as such.  

5.  Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion, 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.  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.

7.  The matters raised in the applicant’s Notice of Motion and written submissions are all bare allegations.  The applicant did not pinpoint any specific error in our Judgment. Importantly, she has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance, or any other reason why his case ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for determination on the basis of the “or otherwise” limb as required by section 22(1)(b)  of the HKCFAO.

8.  The Notice of Motion and written submissions fail to raise any ground that is reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.

9.  For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 10 May 2024 is dismissed.