RESTU DWI AMBARWULAN AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 385/2024, [2025] HKCA 763

On Appeal From [2024] HKCFI 2285

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 385 OF 2024

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 492 OF 2024)

________________________

_____________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

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

1.  On 12 September 2024, Deputy High Court Judge To made an order refusing to grant to 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 11 March 2024, whereby the Board dismissed the Applicants’ appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 5 January 2021 rejecting their non-refoulement claims.

2.  On 24 June 2025, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicants’ appeal against the 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 a Notice of Motion dated 4 July 2025, the Applicants apply for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the Applicants complained that the “Honourable Judges” failed to properly assess their non-refoulement claims. They alleged that the risk faced by the 2^nd Applicant upon refoulement would be huge, and the “authority” of their country would not be able to protect them from their enemies. They also alleged that there would clearly be persecution in their country.

4.  In their written submissions dated 15 July 2025, the Applicants made various general allegations against the decisions of the “Assessors”, “TCAB” and “Honourable judges”, including failure to take into account relevant considerations and taking into account irrelevant considerations, and improperly failing to follow the high standard of fairness. They also re-asserted their claimed fear of risk if they were to return to their home country.

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 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 of the Rules of High Court, Cap 4A in these proceedings as a mere irregularity without rendering the 2^nd Applicant’s application a nullity.