Re Loria Flordeliza Tayaban

CAMP 126/2024, [2026] HKCA 475

On Appeal From [2021] HKCFI 2606

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 126 OF 2024

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 846 OF 2021)

________________________

________________________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

Hon Cheung JA (giving the Decision of the Court)  :

I.  Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal

1.On 26 February 2025, this Court handed down the decision ([2025] HKCA 184)  dismissing the applicant’s application to extend time to appeal the order of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung given on 10 September 2021 refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review in respect of his non - refoulement claim. 

2.On 3 March 2025, the applicant filed a notice of motion applying for leave to appeal this Court’s order to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant also lodged written submissions consisting of six pages on 13 March 2025. 

2)  Our view

3.Having considered the applicant’s documents, 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 applicant’s application on the basis of the documents in the case.

4.The background to this case and the applicant’s claim have been set out in our decision. We will not repeat them.

5.Section 22(1)(b)  of the HKCFAO 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 simply stated bare allegations including that the Court’s decision has some error of law, or that the decision maker relied on favorable country of origin information, or that the actual situation is different, or that there was violence towards minorities, or that there is danger to applicant’s life, without specifying or elaborating what it was that the Judge had in his decision wrongly decided. 

7.The six-page written submission by the applicant cited case authorities and statutory reference such as stating how the applicant’s case required high standard of fairness, or that the decision has a significant effect, or that the Court’s must exercise rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny, or the applicant should be given every reasonable opportunity to establish his claim, or that the Board did not assess credibility properly, or how there was Wednesbury unreasonableness, or that the provision on late filing of notice of appeal applies (when there was no late filing of notice of appeal).  They are all bare allegations unsupported by either explanation or evidence.

8.We are of the view that the grounds and arguments put forward by the applicant 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 HKCFAO.

9.Nor do we see any basis for the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).

3)  Disposition

10.As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, the intended appeal has no merit.  Accordingly, we dismiss the notice of motion.

Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person