|
CACV 237/2024, [2025] HKCA 198
On Appeal From [2024] HKCA 903
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 237 OF 2024
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1681 OF 2019)
_______________
_______________
| Before: |
Hon Au JA and Cheng J in Court |
| Date of Judgment: |
7 March 2025 |
_______________
J U D G M E N T
_______________
Hon Cheng J (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. On 9 October 2024, 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 4 October 2024 (“the Judgment”) ([2024] HKCA 903). In the Judgment, we dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung (“the Judge”) dated 6 June 2024, by which the Judge dismissed her application for leave to apply for judicial review ([2024] HKCFI 1388).
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 stated:
“1. Failed to consider the fact I had raised in my claim that why I would not return back to my country because only fears for my life, my enemies still threatened to me, it will be a great risk for my life upon refoulement to my country of origin.
2. Failed to consider my claim under BOR 2 and BOR 3 risk that the Authority of my country of origin would not able to protect me, and I could not be relocate any place into my country.” (sic)
5. Pursuant to Practice Direction 2.1, the applicant lodged her written submissions on 22 October 2024. In those submissions, she reiterated that her life would still be in danger and that the Country of Origin Information (“COI”) showed that the authorities would not protect her upon her refoulement. She complained that the Board failed to assess her fear properly and that it was wrong for the court to confirm the Board’s Decision and that the court “did not follow the high standard of fairness [to] provide opportunity for [her] claim”[1].
6. In our view, the applicant’s application is without substance. Her assertions are 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]. More importantly, the applicant fails to point out any specific error in the Judgment. The Board assessed her claim on all applicable grounds including BOR 2 and BOR 3 risks and gave detailed reasons for its decision before rejecting her non-refoulement claim.[2] As stated at [12] of the Judgment, it is well-established that the assessment of evidence, COI and risk of harm, state protection and viability of internal relocation are primarily within the province of the Board (and the Director) as primary decision makers. The court will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there are errors of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board. Clearly, her assertions are devoid of merit and do not constitute proper grounds of appeal.
7. Further and in any event, even taking her case at its 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 October 2024 is dismissed.
| (Thomas Au) |
(Yvonne Cheng) |
| Justice of Appeal |
Judge of the Court of |
| |
First Instance |
The applicant acting in person
[1] See paragraph 3(a) of the applicant’s written submissions lodged on 22 October 2024.
[2] See paragraphs 34 to 59 and 61 to 62 of the Board’s Decision dated 4 June 2019.
|