CALSIYAO JONALYN BAYUBAY v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CACV 440/2024, [2025] HKCA 321

On Appeal From [2024] HKCFI 2808

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 440 OF 2024

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1537 OF 2024)

________________________

_____________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

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

1.  On 15 October 2024, Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan made an order refusing to grant to the Applicant leave to apply for judicial review. The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 30 November 2023, whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 26 January 2023 rejecting her non-refoulement claim.

2.  On 13 February 2025, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the Order of the Judge. The basic facts of this case and the Court’s reasons for dismissing the Applicant’s appeal have been set out in the CA Judgment and will not be repeated here.

3.  By Notice of Motion dated 28 February 2025, the Applicant applies for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant states that she does not agree with the decisions made by the Director and the Board because they relied totally on “some web news which is officially not recognized”, and she considers that her case was not determined fairly.

4.  In her written submissions dated 13 March 2025, the Applicant complains about the lack of legal and language assistance. She alleges generally that the Board unfairly fettered its discretion and acted in a procedurally unfair manner, and its decision was unreasonable or irrational in the public law sense and was a result of procedural errors or unfairness. She also alleges that the authorities acted in a discriminatory manner towards non-refoulement claimants.

5.  Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, we determine the present application for leave to appeal on paper without an oral hearing.

6.  Under s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484, an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal in any civil cause or matter if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal (as the case may be), 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 Applicant’s complaint about lack of legal and language assistance has been dealt with at paragraph 14 of the CA Judgment. Her other complaints are all general assertions without particulars. No question of great general or public importance involved in the intended appeal is identified in the Notice of Motion. We are unable to see any such question being involved in the intended appeal. The Applicant has not identified any error in the CA Judgment, or raised any viable ground of appeal against the CA Judgment. We are satisfied that the intended appeal has no reasonable prospect of success.

8.  There is also no basis to grant leave to appeal on the “or otherwise” limb in s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance.

9.  Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is refused and the Notice of Motion is dismissed.