DARWATI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 123/2024, [2024] HKCA 1105

On Appeal From [2024] HKCFI 859

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 123 OF 2024

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1413 OF 2019)

____________

BETWEEN
	DARWATI	Applicant
and
	TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE	Putative Respondent
and
	DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION	Putative
		Interested Party

____________

Before:

Hon Au and G Lam JJA in Court

Date of Written Submissions:	16 October 2024
Date of Judgment:	10 December 2024

_________________

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 Indonesia 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 2 October 2024, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA.  In her written submissions dated 16 October 2024, she recounted her immigration history and stated that she could not go back to her country because her life would be in danger there, as her creditor would harm or kill her.

3.  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.

(Thomas Au) Justice of Appeal

(Godfrey Lam) Justice of Appeal

  

The Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person