Titin Fatmawati v. Torture Claims Appeal Board

CACV 310/2023, [2024] HKCA 187

On Appeal From [2024] HKCA 56

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 310 OF 2023

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 3343 OF 2019)

____________

____________

_________________

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 an Indonesian 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 15 January 2024.

2.By Notice of Motion filed on 18 January 2024, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA. In that document the applicant stated that the decision-makers did not scrutinise her application properly, resulting in her being liable to be removed to a risk state, and that she has severe problems in her home country.

3.In her written submissions the applicant reiterated the risks she faces in her home country and the problems with the decisions of the authorities in Hong Kong.

4.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.

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 because she 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