Rizal Renu v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 390/2022

[2025] HKCA 890

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 390 OF 2022

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 154 OF 2019)

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon S T Poon J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.On 22 February 2023, this court (Barma JA and S T Poon J)  handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan set out in the Form CALL-1 dated 16 September 2022, by which the Deputy Judge refused her application for leave to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”)  dismissing her appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”)  rejecting her non-refoulement claim.

2.The facts and issues in the applicant’s appeal, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment.[1]  We will not repeat them here.

3.The applicant subsequently applied, by a Notice of Motion filed on 10 March 2023, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the applicant set out her grounds, which consist of attacks on the decisions of the Director and the Board, and she also contended that this court was wrong to “confirm” their decisions.

4.In her written submissions lodged on 23 March 2023, the applicant repeated her fear for her life if she was refouled, complained of the alleged impropriety and errors committed by the Board and the Director in their decisions, and essentially contended that this court had erred in finding that there was no merit in her appeal.

5.Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion and written submissions, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on the papers.  We have, therefore, determined the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents filed.

6.The matters stated by the applicant do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine, as required by section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484.  Nor is any such question apparent to us from the matters she has raised.

7.Neither the Notice of Motion nor the written submissions identify any supposed error in our judgment and they raise no ground that is reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.

8.We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

9.For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 10 March 2023 is dismissed.

The applicant acting in person