Case Document

100%Judiciary

CAMP 279/2022, [2026] HKCA 900

On appeal from [2022] HKCFI 1444

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 279 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 149/2022)

--------------------------------

RE:

MUKHAYATI

Applicant

--------------------------------

Before:

Hon Barma JA and Au JA in Court

Date of Judgment:

6 May 2026

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

Hon Barma JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.On 26 April 2023, this court (Yuen JA and Barma JA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of DHCJ KW Lung dated 2 June 2022 refusing to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dismissing her appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting her non‑refoulement claim.

2.The facts and issues in the applicant’s application, 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 2 May 2023, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the applicant stated that she “did not get justice” and that she wanted to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

4.In the applicant’s written submission dated 16 May 2023, she repeated the background to her claim, the alleged bases for her fear of harm upon refoulement, as well as the procedural history of the processing of her claim. She asked this court to “permit [her] to go to the Court of Final 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.The Notice of Motion failed to provide any particulars in the supposed errors in our judgment and it raises 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 2 May 2023 is dismissed.