Astutik Pudji v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 405/2022

[2026] HKCA 1158

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 405 OF 2022

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 711/2019)

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.On 28 November 2025, 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 K. W. Lung (“the Deputy Judge”)  set out in the Form CALL-1 dated 5 October 2022[1], by which the Deputy Judge refused to extend time for the applicant to apply for leave to apply for judicial review and dismissed her application for leave to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dismissing her appeal against the decisions of the Director of Immigration 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.[2]  We will not repeat them here.  

3.The applicant subsequently applied, by a Notice of Motion filed on 9 December 2025, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the applicant stated:

“I am pleading to the court to give me a chance to appeal at final court of appeal. The decision is not reasonable.”

4.In breach of the directions made by the Registrar of Civil Appeals, the applicant failed to lodge written submissions. She is thus deemed to have abandoned her right to rely on written submissions in the present application, and is debarred from lodging the same.

5.Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion, 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 has failed to identify any supposed error 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 9 December 2025 is dismissed.

The applicant acting in person