CACV 394/2024, [2025] HKCA 876
On Appeal From [2024] HKCFI 2426
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 394 OF 2024
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1774 OF 2019)
____________________
RE:
EMY NURYANI
Applicant
____________________
Before : Hon Cheung JA and Cheng J in Court
Date of Decision : 6 October 2025
____________________
____________________
Hon Cheung JA (giving the Decision of the Court) :
I. Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal
1. On 27 January 2025, this Court (Cheung JA and Cheng J) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 12 September 2024 in which he refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review.
2. The facts and issues of the appeal as well as the Court’s reasons for dismissing it are set out in our judgment. We will not repeat them here.
3. The applicant now applies, by a notice of motion filed on 10 February 2025, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant stated in her notice of motion the following in summary :
1) If the applicant returns she would be exposed to torture;
2) If the applicant returns home it would violate her absolute right to life; and
3) The applicant has a son in Hong Kong and it would be risky to take him with her back to her home country.
4. The applicant’s written submissions stated the following in summary :
1) The applicant still fears for her life if she returns to her home country[1] ;
2) The Board/the Director failed to take into account relevant considerations or took into account irrelevant consideration, including not following high standard of fairness, the suggested relocation being unsafe, and her claim should be assessed under BOR 3 risk[2] ;
3) The decision maker did not observe the applicant’s fear properly[3] ; and
4) The applicant’s contentions are real[4] .
II. Our view
5. Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) (‘Ordinance ’) leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal will only be granted if the question to be determined involves great general or public importance or otherwise ought to be determined by the Court of Final Appeal.
6. The matters stated by the applicant in her notice of motion and written submissions are broad and vague assertions that do not pertain to nor explain and elaborate on the particular circumstances of the applicant. Findings of fact are within the province of the Board. In any event, the matters stated do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine in accordance with section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance . Nor is there any such question apparent to us from the matters raised by the applicant.
7. We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance .
III. Disposition
8. For these reasons, the notice of motion dated 10 February 2025 is dismissed.
(Peter Cheung)
(Yvonne Cheng)
Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person
[1] Written submissions [2];
[2] Written submissions [3];
[3] Written submissions [4];
[4] Written submissions [5];