Re Hatulan Ailyn Del Rosario and Another

CACV 239/2024, [2025] HKCA 1060

On appeal from [2024] HKCFI 1340

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 239 OF 2024

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 530 OF 2023)

____________________

____________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.On 1 September 2025, this court handed down our judgment ([2025] HKCA 779) dismissing the 1^st and 2^nd applicants’ appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Lung given on 30 May 2024 refusing to give them leave to apply for judicial review in respect of their non‑refoulement claims.

2.On 11 September 2025, the applicants filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal this court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  The 1^st applicant has lodged a written submission on behalf of herself and the 2^nd applicant to support the application.      

3.Having considered the Notice of Motion and written submission, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on paper without an oral hearing.  We have therefore proceeded to determine the application on the basis of the documents in the case.

4.The background to this case and the applicants’ claims have been set out in our judgment.  We will not repeat them.

5.Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484, provides that leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal may be granted 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.

6.The Notice of Motion asks that leave be given for the applicants to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal but does not set out any ground in support of the application.

7.In the written submission, the 1^st applicant reiterates the background leading to her and the 2^nd applicant’s claims, and adds that her ex-husband always goes to her family home to look for her and the 2^nd applicant and their lives are in danger.  She also asserts that they will not get protection in her country because of corruption.  

8.We are of the view that what has been put forward by the applicants do not constitute viable grounds for giving leave to appeal. Importantly, no question of great general or public importance has been identified as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance.  The matters contended in the written submission all pertain to the personal circumstances of the applicants and their claims.  Further, they do not engage our reasons for dismissing the appeal (see [18] to [27] of our judgment) and fail to show any error in our decision.  We also do not see any basis for the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

9.Accordingly, we dismiss the Notice of Motion.