Aplonia Akoit v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 152/2023, [2024] HKCA 158

On Appeal from [2023] HKCFI 1285

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 152 OF 2023

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1247 OF 2019)

________________________

_____________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Hon Chow JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.On 15 May 2023, Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan made an order refusing to grant the Applicant leave to apply for judicial review. The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 21 March 2018, whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decisions of the Director of Immigration dated 1 August 2016 and 4 October 2017 respectively rejecting her non-refoulement claim.

2.On 21 November 2023, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the Judge’s order of 15 May 2023. The basic facts of this case and the Court’s reasons for dismissing the Applicant’s appeal have been set out in the CA Judgment and will not be repeated here.

3.By Notice of Motion dated 28 December 2023, the Applicant applies for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant states the following:

“I would like to inform to Court of Final Appeal. There is some error of my law maker authorities. I am strongly opposed to my decision maker authorities. They totally relied on the web news information which officially not recogniz. I do not think my case determined fairly.” [sic]

4.In her written submissions dated 11 January 2024, the Applicant complains that she received no language assistance in relation to the assessment of her claim based on BOR 2 risk. She also complains generally about the lack of sound judgment and fairness throughout the non-refoulement claim assessment process. The former complaint about lack of language assistance has been dealt with at §12 of the CA Judgment, while the latter complaint is a bare allegation without particulars.

5.Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, we determine the present application for leave to appeal on paper without an oral hearing.

6.Under s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484, an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal in any civil cause or matter if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal (as the case may be), the question involved in the appeal is one which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision.

7.No question of great general or public importance involved in the proposed appeal is identified in the Notice of Motion. We are unable to see any such question being involved in the proposed appeal. The Applicant has not identified any error in the CA Judgment, or raised any viable ground of appeal against the CA Judgment. We are satisfied that the intended appeal has no merits and no reasonable prospect of success.

8.There is also no basis to grant leave to appeal on the “or otherwise” limb in s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance.

9.Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is refused and the Notice of Motion is dismissed.

The Applicant, acting in person