ORIAO JEANIA PICPICAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 277/2023, [2024] HKCA 707

On Appeal from [2024] HKCA 18

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 277 OF 2023

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1475 OF 2019)

_______________

_______________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Hon Ng J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  By a judgment dated 12 January 2024 ([2024] HKCA 18) (“the Judgment”), this court dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the Deputy Judge”) dated 4 September 2023 ([2023] HKCFI 2259) (“the Decision”), whereby the Deputy Judge dismissed her application for leave to apply for judicial review.

2.  On 24 January 2024, the Applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against the Judgment.

3.  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.

4.  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.

5.  In her Notice of Motion, the Applicant stated that her life was still under threat by her ex-boyfriend and that at the oral hearing before this court, she could not explain herself properly as it was her first time attending court and that she was scared to explain her problem.

6.  Pursuant to Practice Direction 2.1, the Applicant lodged her written submissions on 6 February 2024. In those submissions, she repeated the factual basis of her non-refoulement claim that she was scared to go back to the Philippines because her life would be under threat. She submitted that her ex-boyfriend’s family was wealthy and had connection with the police department and some gangsters too. She submitted that her enemies were powerful and could forge a case against her regarding her ex-boyfriend’s death. She further claimed that she was scared during the oral hearing before us and was unable to explain her problem.

7.  In our view, the Applicant’s intended appeal is plainly devoid of merits. General assertions of her fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6]. The matters set out in the Notice of Motion and the written submissions fail to engage with the reasons given in the Judgment for dismissing her appeal and do not pinpoint any specific error in or raise any discernible grounds for disturbing the Judgment. Importantly, the Applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance or indeed any other reason why her 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.  Accordingly, we refuse to give leave to the Applicant to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The Notice of Motion is hereby dismissed.