Re Estacio Rechie Lacno

CACV 235/2022, [2023] HKCA 1288

On Appeal From [2023] HKCA 941

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 235 OF 2022

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2287 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 applicant is a Philippine national 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 22 August 2023.

2.By Notice of Motion filed on 3 October 2023, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA.  In that document the applicant stated that she would be killed or harmed by her abusive husband if she returned home, and that she would like her daughter to continue her schooling in Hong Kong.  In her written submissions for the present application, the applicant stated again her reasons for seeking non-refoulement protection.

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, quite apart from the fact that the application was made out of time.

5.Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.

The Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person