HENI AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 119/2023, [2024] HKCA 510

On Appeal From [2023] HKCFI 987

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 119 OF 2023

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1032 OF 2019)

________________________

_____________________

_____________________

J U D G M E N T

_____________________

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

1.  On 17 April 2024, Deputy High Court Judge To made an order refusing to grant the Applicants 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 1 April 2019, whereby the Board dismissed the Applicants’ appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 19 July 2017 rejecting their non-refoulement claims.

2.  On 30 April 2024, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicants’ appeal against the said order of the Judge. The basic facts of this case and the Court’s reasons for dismissing the Applicants’ appeal have been set out in the CA Judgment and will not be repeated here.

3.  By Notice of Motion dated 14 May 2024, the Applicants apply for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the Applicants state that they are not satisfied with the decision of the Court of Appeal and want to go to the Court of Final Appeal.

4.  In her written submissions dated 28 May 2024, the 1^st Applicant (on behalf of herself and the 2^nd Applicant) briefly sets out some personal background information and repeats that she wants to go to the Court of Final Appeal for justice, stating that she “want[s] to go for all the mother and baby who are facting problem especially for those mothers who have endless worries about their children and get no way”.

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.  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 Applicants have 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 merits and 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.

10.  For the avoidance of doubt, we shall treat the non-compliance with Order 80 rule 2 in these proceedings as a mere irregularity without rendering the 2^nd Applicant’s application a nullity.