Pascua Janice Alcaraz v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CAMP 106 /2024, [2026] HKCA 478

On appeal from [2023] HKCFI 2910

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 106 OF 2024

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1347 OF 2019)

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.This is the applicant’s Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal handed down on 24 June 2025 ([2025] HKCA 579)  whereby the Court of Appeal refused to grant extension of time to appeal.

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.  The applicant lodged her written submissions on 16 October 2025.  Having considered the written submissions and the papers, we think it is appropriate to determine this application on paper and proceed to do so.

Grounds of appeal

3.The applicant stated the following grounds in her Notice of Motion and written submissions:

(1)  There are some errors in the “law maker authorities”.  They totally relied on some web news which was not officially recognised and there was no proper investigation by the authorities;

(2)  Her case was not determined fairly;

(3)  She was not provided with proper legal and language assistance;

(4)  The respondent is in breach of procedural fairness in refusing the appeal on the grounds that the requirements were not satisfied and the adjudicator acted in a procedurally unfair manner in dealing with the appeal;

(5)  The respondent’s decision in refusing the appeal was unreasonable or irrational in public law sense or is a result of procedural error or unfairness;

(6)  The respondent failed to meet the greater care and duty owed to a self-represented claimant;

(7)  The discriminatory act of the authorities towards non-refoulement claimant is unacceptable and is detrimental to the spirit of the judicial system.

Analysis and disposition

4.Under section 24(2)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484)  (“the Ordinance”), application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal shall be filed within 28 days from the date of the judgment to be appealed from.  Good grounds have to be shown by the applicant for the court to grant an extension of time pursuant to section 24(5)  of the Ordinance (Re Rajaram Razeena [2019] HKCA 959 at §1.4).

5.Section 22(1)(b)  of the Ordinance 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 was late for about two months in filing her Notice of Motion.  She did not provide any explanation for the delay.  We do not think there is any good ground to grant extension of time for the applicant to file her Notice of Motion. 

7.In any event, her intended grounds of appeal have no merit.  In particular, interpreter services were provided at the hearings at every stage and at the time when the applicant was assisted by Duty Lawyer.  The high standard of fairness required by law would not entail interpretation service being made available to an applicant all the time as he may desire (Re Gurung Sagar [2019] HKCA 658 at §12).  Besides, the applicant’s affirmation and written submissions are written in English.  This indicates that either the applicant is herself conversant with the English language or she has access to language assistance of her own if needed. 

8.As for the ground relating to the lack of legal representation, the Court of Appeal has repeatedly stated that an applicant of non-refoulement claim does not have an absolute right to free legal representation at all stages of the proceedings (Re Paswan Shibu Lal [2018] HKCA 249 at §21). The applicant already had the benefit of legal representation in presenting her case to the Director.

9.The rest of her grounds are just bare assertions without evidence in support.

10.In addition, the applicant has not identified 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).

11.For the above reasons, we dismiss the Notice of Motion filed on 6 October 2025.

The Applicant (Appellant), acting in person