Akter Suntana v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 317/2023, [2025] HKCA 309

On appeal from [2023] HKCFI 2486

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 317 OF 2023

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 975 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Kwan VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.This is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal handed down on 22 November 2024 ([2024] HKCA 1089). The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung dated 10 October 2023 refusing to grant leave for the applicant to seek judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board concerning her non-refoulement claim.

2.Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, the Registrar of Civil Appeals had directed that the notice of motion shall be determined on paper without an oral hearing.

3.The grounds of appeal in the notice of motion and the applicant’s written submissions may be summarised as follows:

(1)  The judges were wrong as a matter of law for not having applied the principle of irrationality to the decision made by the Director of Immigration;

(2)  There is some error in the decision. The decision maker just relied on the country of origin information and the applicant’s previous facts which were in favour of rejecting the claims;

(3)  Actual life is different from the country of origin information. The immigration officers and the courts prefer to ignore the overwhelming evidence of the violence towards minorities searching for unrealistic silver lining;

(4)  The judge did not apply the law properly;

(5)  High standards of fairness are required in the determination of a torture claim on the part of the decision maker;

(6)  The adjudicator acted in a procedurally unfair manner without properly assessing the applicant’s credibility.

4.Having considered the papers of this case, we think it is appropriate to determine this application on paper and proceed to do so.

Analysis and disposition

5.Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484) provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, from any judgment of the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter, whether final or interlocutory, 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.

6.The applicant’s grounds and submissions are just bare assertions. Her complaints that this court failed to apply the principle of irrationality and did not apply the law properly are not supported by any particulars, elaboration or evidence. She failed to identify any particular mistakes in our judgment. She also failed to identify any question of great general or public importance which ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for determination in accordance with section 22(1)(b). There is also no basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).

7.Therefore, we dismiss the notice of motion filed on 25 November 2024.

The Applicant (Appellant), acting in person