Yuyuk Yulika and Another v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 141/2024, [2025] HKCA 105

On Appeal from [2024] HKCA 991

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 141 OF 2024

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1229 OF 2019)

_______________

_______________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Hon Ng J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.By a judgment dated 30 October 2024 ([2024] HKCA 991) (“the Judgment”), this court dismissed the Applicants’ appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung dated 3 April 2024 ([2024] HKCFI 748), whereby their application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused.

2.On 12 November 2024, the 1^st Applicant filed a Notice of Motion for herself and on behalf of her son, the 2^nd Applicant herein, to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against the Judgment.

3.The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as this court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in the Judgment. We will not repeat them here. After reviewing the Notice of Motion and the Applicants’ written submission, we see no reason to deviate from the usual practice to consider this application on paper pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1.

4.Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484 (“the HKCFAO”) provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of this court or the Court of Final Appeal if 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.

5.In the Notice of Motion, it was stated that:

“I would like to infomr the Honourable Court that there is some error in law in my decision. Decision maker just relied on COL Information and my previous facts which were in favor while rejecting my claim. Acual life occur different situation then what is mentioned in COL Information. The Officer and cours prefers to ignore the overwhelming of the evidence of this violence towards minorities searching for unrealistic silver lining. The Decision is betrary a bias and formula approach unlikely fairly access the danger of my life and clearly not reasonable.” (sic)

6.Pursuant to Practice Direction 2.1, the Applicants lodged their written submission on 21 November 2024. In those submission, they cited various legal authorities on the high standards of fairness and Wednesbury unreasonableness, as well as section 37ZT of the Immigration Ordinance (Cap 115) concerning the late filing of the Notice of Appeal before the Board. They further alleged that the Board had acted in a procedurally unfair manner.

7.The matters raised in the Notice of Motion and written submissions are all general and bare allegations which are not supported by particulars or evidence. The Applicants did not pinpoint any specific error in the Judgment. Importantly, they have failed to identify any question of great general or public importance, or any other reason why their case ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for determination on the basis of the “or otherwise” limb as required by section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.

8.Therefore, we refuse to give leave to the Applicants to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The Notice of Motion is hereby dismissed.

The Applicants acting in person