Re Lavado Mary Jane Mabao and Another

CACV 295/2021

[2022] HKCA 806

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 295 OF 2021

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2697 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

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 applicants, who are a mother and son, are Philippine nationals. Their 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”). Their application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decisions was dismissed by the Court of First Instance.[1] Their appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court in our judgment dated 27 April 2022.[2]

2.By Notice of Motion filed on 10 May 2022, the applicants seek leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA.  They stated in the Motion that the 1^st applicant would be harmed or killed by her family because of her relationship with Sajid and because she had given birth to her son.  They also stated that the 2^nd applicant was studying in Hong Kong and would be in danger if he returned to their country.

3.In their written submissions lodged on 23 May 2022, they repeated that the 1^st applicant would be killed, harmed and tortured by her family if they returned to the Philippines.  They quoted reports issued by international organisations and stated that the Philippines are fraught with unlawful killings by the police and armed individuals.  They said that the possibility of relocation was a myth and that they could not live normally in the Philippines without any fear.

4.There is no reason for us to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on the basis of the available materials without an oral hearing.

5.We take the view that this application ought to be dismissed.  The applicants have essentially simply repeated their grounds for seeking non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong.  They have failed to show 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).  They have also failed to show any prospects of success in the intended appeal.

6.Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.

The Applicants are, unrepresented, acting in person