FERNANDO MINHINDUKULASURIYA LALITHA RAMANI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 42/2025, [2025] HKCA 1085

On Appeal from [2025] HKCA 671

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 42 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2310 OF 2019)

____________________

____________________

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

Hon Cheng J (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 Sri Lankan national whose claim for non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“Director”) 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 27 August 2025.

2.  By Notice of Motion filed on 4 September 2025, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA.  In that document, the applicant asserts that her life is not safe in her home country, that she would be killed by her enemies, and that the Board and the Director did not scrutinize her claim.   

3.  The applicant lodged written submissions which were received by the court on 15 September 2025.  Those submissions merely repeated her general criticisms of the decisions below and her allegations concerning the harm she would face upon repatriation to her home country.

4.  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.

5.  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.

6.  Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.