HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Miscellaneous Proceedings2023

FERROLINO JASMIN PUNO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Related cases with same parties

  • CACV100/2026SINGH NARINDER PAL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
  • CACV10/2022ROBILLOS ADOLFO DE LA CRUZ v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
  • CACV103/2021LUU THI VAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD /NON REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
  • CACV103/2023ALMAS KHAWAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
  • CACV103/2025COLLINS OBI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
  • CACV104/2019DHALI JONY v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
  • CACV104/2023VU THI NGOC MY v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
  • CACV105/2021DINH THI VAN 對 TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITON OFFICE
  • CACV107/2023NGUYEN THI THUY v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
  • CACV107/2025AHMAD AQEEL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
  • CACV1081/2025HOANG VAN BINH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
  • CACV110/2021AYUB MUHAMMAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
  • CACV11/2023RUPASINGHA ARACHCHIGE SHIROMA THARANGANI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
  • CACV112/2025NONG THI HA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
  • CACV113/2022SITI MULDIYATI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
  • CACV1151/2025ARSHDEEP SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
  • CACV115/2022GALLEGO VALDES AUGUSTO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
  • CACV115/2024QUIRANTE JACKIELON DE GUZMAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
  • CACV115/2025DINH KHAC KIEN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
  • CACV1153/2025MEGA PUSPITA SARI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Files (2)

[2024] HKCA 1116-EN-2024-11-29

FERROLINO JASMIN PUNO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HTML content

CAMP 87 /2023, [2024] HKCA 1116

On appeal from [2022] HKCFI 2918

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 87 OF 2023

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 3688 OF 2019)

________________________

BETWEEN  
 Ferrolino Jasmin PunoApplicant
 and
 Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non‑refoulement Claims Petition OfficePutative Respondent
 and
 Director of ImmigrationPutative Interested Party

________________________

Before: Hon Kwan VP and Barma JA in Court
Date of Judgment: 29 November 2024

____________________

J U D G M E N T

____________________

 

Hon Kwan VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is the applicant’s notice of motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal handed down on 20 September 2023 ([2023] HKCA 1073). The Court of Appeal refused to extend time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung dated 11 October 2022 dismissing the application for leave to seek judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board concerning the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

2.  Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, the Registrar of Civil Appeals had directed that the applicant shall lodge written submissions on or before 15 March 2024.  It was further directed that the notice of motion shall be determined on paper only without an oral hearing upon compliance with the said direction or the expiry of the time for complying with the direction. The applicant did not lodge any written submissions by the prescribed deadline. Having considered the papers of this case, we think it is appropriate to determine this application on paper and proceed to do so.

Analysis and Disposition

3.  Under section 24(2) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484) (“the Ordinance”), an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal shall be filed within 28 days from the date of the judgment to be appealed from.  Good grounds have to be shown for the court to grant an extension of time pursuant to section 24(5) of the Ordinance (Re Rajaram Razeena[2019] HKCA 959 at §1.4).

4.  Section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, from any judgment of the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter, whether final or interlocutory, 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.

5.  The applicant was late for more than 4 months in filing the notice of motion.  The delay is substantial.  She did not provide any explanation for the delay.  Under these circumstances, there is no good ground for this court to grant extension of time for her to file the notice of motion.

6.  In any event, the applicant only reiterated the problems she would face in her home country in the Philippines in her notice of motion.  She has not identified any mistakes in our judgment nor has she raised any question of great general or public importance which ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for determination in accordance with section 22(1)(b).  There is also no basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).

7.  Therefore, we refuse to grant leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and dismiss the notice of motion filed on 1 March 2024.

(Susan Kwan)
Vice President
(Aarif Barma)
Justice of Appeal

  

The Applicant, acting in person

[2023] HKCA 1073-EN-2023-09-20

FERROLINO JASMIN PUNO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HTML content

CAMP 87/2023, [2023] HKCA 1073

On appeal from [2022] HKCFI 2918

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 87 OF 2023

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 3688 OF 2019)

________________________

BETWEEN

 Ferrolino Jasmin PunoApplicant
and
 Torture Claims Appeal Board /
Non refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative
Respondent
 and 
 Director of ImmigrationPutative
  Interested Party

________________________

Before: Hon Kwan VP and Barma JA in Court
Date of Judgment: 20 September 2023

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Kwan VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  Upon the applicant’s request to withdraw her application, Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung dismissed the application for leave to seek judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) concerning the applicant’s non-refoulement claim on 11 October 2022[1].

2.  On 13 December 2022, the applicant filed a summons with the Court of First Instance stating that she wants to continue her judicial review. The summons was dismissed by the judge on 18 January 2023[2].

3.  On 24 February 2023, the applicant filed the present summons with the Court of Appeal stating that she does not want to go back to the Philippines. As the time for appealing against the judge’s decision has already expired, this application should be treated as an application for extension of time to appeal against the judge’s decision of 18 January 2023[3].

4.  The applicant is a national of the Philippines. She last arrived in Hong Kong as a visitor on 5 July 2016. She subsequently overstayed and made a non-refoulement claim on 1 August 2016 on the basis that her husband would kill her if she returns to the Philippines as she has a child with another man.

The decisions of the Director and the Board

5.  The applicant’s claim was considered as withdrawn by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) as the claim form was not submitted by the applicant within the prescribed time.

6.  The applicant requested to re-open her case and the request was rejected by the Director on 23 August 2018.

7.  The applicant appealed against the Director’s decision to the Board. She attended the hearing before the Board on 18 June 2019. The Board considered that the applicant had failed to show that her failure to return the completed forms as required was due to circumstances beyond her control. The Board was not satisfied that the claim should be re-opened and dismissed the appeal on 18 July 2019.

The judge’s decision

8.  On 10 December 2019, the applicant filed a Form 86 and an affidavit in HCAL 3688/2019 to seek leave to bring judicial review against the Board’s decision. In her supporting affirmation, she stated that she wants to apply for judicial review because she does not want to go back to her country as her husband threatened to kill her.

9.  On 5 September 2022, the applicant filed an affidavit indicating that she wants to withdraw her judicial review because she wants to go back to the Philippines and her life is not in danger anymore. DHCJ Lung therefore dismissed the leave application on 11 October 2022.

Analysis and disposition

10.  On 24 February 2023, the Registrar of Civil Appeals directed the applicant to lodge written submissions in support of her summons on or before 10 March 2023. It was further directed that the applicant will be deemed to have abandoned her right to rely on written submissions and the application will be referred to the Court of Appeal for consideration based on the available documents and materials if she fails to lodge written submissions before the deadline. The applicant did not lodge any written submissions as directed. She is deemed to have abandoned her right to rely on written submissions and we proceed to consider her application on the existing materials.

11.  In considering whether to extend time for appealing, the court will take into account: (1) the length of delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the prospect of the intended appeal; and (4) the prejudice to the respondent if an extension of time were granted.

12.  The applicant did not provide any explanation for the delay in filing the present application. As there is nothing to show that the delay is excusable, the applicant must show a real prospect of success on the merits to obtain an extension of time to appeal (Secretary for Justice v Hong Kong Yaumatei Ferry Co Ltd [2001] 1 HKC 125).

13.  In the summons filed with the court below on 13 December 2022, the applicant stated that she wants “to continue [her] judicial review” because she cannot go home to the Philippines as her husband cannot accept her son in Hong Kong and their lives are in danger. In dealing with this summons in his decision on 18 January 2023, the judge treated it as an application for extension of time to appeal against his decision dismissing her leave application for judicial review on 11 October 2022[4]. He dismissed the summons of 13 December 2022 on the basis that as her leave application was dismissed upon her request to withdraw, there is nothing she could appeal against and the court is functus officio insofar as the leave application is concerned as the order for dismissal of that application has been sealed[5].

14.  On the wording of the summons of 13 December 2022, it seems more appropriate to treat this as an application to re-open the leave application for judicial review rather than an application for extension of time to appeal against the dismissal of the leave application.

15.  Had the summons been treated as an application for re-opening the application for leave to bring judicial review, the judge would be right in saying that the court has become functus officio after the leave application has been dismissed and the dismissal order has been sealed. Whereas when the summons was treated as an application for extension of time to appeal, the judge would still have the discretion to deal with the application after the sealing of the order for dismissal of the leave application.

16.  Having said that, the application for extension of time to appeal is devoid of merits as the applicant did not put forward any viable ground against the judge’s decision in dismissing the leave application. In particular, the judge is entitled to dismiss the leave application without assessing the merits when the applicant withdrew the application of his own accord (Re Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi[2022] HKCA 471 at §19(2)).

17.  In the present application, the applicant failed to show that she should be allowed to re-open her application after the dismissal of the application or that she should be granted extension of time to appeal. She has not demonstrated that there is any prospect of success in the intended appeal. We therefore refuse to grant extension of time to appeal and dismiss the summons filed on 24 February 2023.

(Susan Kwan)
Vice President
(Aarif Barma)
Justice of Appeal

The Applicant, acting in person



[1]  [2022] HKCFI 2918

[2]  [2023] HKCFI 71

[3]  The Registrar of Civil Appeals treated the present summons as an application for extension of time to appeal in the directions made on 24 February 2023.

[4]  [2023] HKCFI 71 at §6

[5]  [2023] HKCFI 71 at §7