Re Khosidatun and Others

CACV 447/2021, [2023] HKCA 839

On Appeal From [2023] HKCA 627

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 447 OF 2021

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2903 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 1^st applicant is an Indonesian national and the 2^nd and 3^rd applicants are both her sons born in Hong Kong in 2012 and 2016 respectively. Their claims for non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong were 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 decision was dismissed by the Court of First Instance. Their appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court in our judgment dated 12 May 2023.

2.By Notice of Motion filed on 29 May 2023, the applicants seek leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA. In that document the applicants stated that this court’s decision disregarded their dangerous situation.

3.In their written submissions lodged on 12 June 2023, the applicants stated that the current legal and police system in Indonesia would not be able to protect them; that if they returned to Indonesia, the threat from the 1^st applicant’s mother and brother no longer be just verbal; that the Board ignored the problems that happen in Indonesia and selectively relied on country of origin information; that it was difficult for the 1^st applicant to recall some of the facts because of the time-lapse and that should not be taken against her credibility; that the children were born “out of parental consent” could suffer harm in Indonesia; and that there were many child abuse cases in Indonesia.

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 applicants have 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 they have failed to show any prospects of success in the intended appeal.

6.Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.

The 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd Applicants, unrepresented, acting in person