Re Marquez Trudiza Cayabas

CACV 228/2022

[2022] HKCA 1647

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 228 OF 2022

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2676 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

Hon Andrew Chan 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 national of the Philippines 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.[1] Her appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court in our judgment dated 19 September 2022.[2]

2.By Notice of Motion filed on 23 September 2022, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA. The applicant stated that the decision makers relied on inaccurate information stated in the “COI” in coming to their decisions and that the applicant would like to challenge the decisions.

3.In her written submissions lodged on 6 October 2022, the applicant simply reiterated certain basic legal principles in handling torture claim applications without going into details and / or specifics. Further, the applicant did not mention any inaccuracy of any information in the “COI”.

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, 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 the applicant, in our view, has failed to show any prospects of success in the intended appeal.

6.Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.

The applicant, unrepresented, acting in person