HATTANAGE MOLEEN RAMANI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 146/2024, [2025] HKCA 167

On Appeal From [2024] HKCFI 976

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 146 OF 2024

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1405 OF 2019)

____________

____________

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

Hon G Lam JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”). The applicant is a national of Sri Lanka whose claim for non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong was rejected by the Director of Immigration and by the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”). Her application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision was dismissed by the Court of First Instance. Her appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court in our judgment dated 24 September 2024.

2.  By Notice of Motion filed on 13 January 2025, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA. She has appended to it a two-page document in which she has set out a number of grounds of application, but they are all generalised criticisms of the courts’ decisions without particulars, such as that this Court’s decision is “perverse, arbitrary and harsh in nature” and “against the law and facts of the case”.

3.  The applicant has not lodged any further written submissions for the present application. There is no reason for us to depart from the usual practice of determining an application for leave to appeal on the basis of the available materials without an oral hearing, as set out in paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1.

4.  We take the view that this application ought to be dismissed because the applicant has not shown that the intended appeal raises any question which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the CFA for decision (which is the condition for giving leave to appeal under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484), and also because she has failed to show any prospects of success in the intended appeal.

5.  Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.