Re Jumiati

CACV 372/2023 , [2026] HKCA 1261

On appeal from [2023] HKCFI 2809

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 372 OF 2023

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1145 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________________

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 8 February 2024 ([2024] HKCA 145). The Court of Appeal rejected the appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung dated 14 November 2023 refusing to grant leave for the applicant to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) concerning her non-refoulement claim.

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 27 February 2024 and was later removed from Hong Kong in 2025.  Therefore, we determine this application on paper.

Grounds of Appeal

3.The applicant stated the following as her grounds of appeal in the Notice of Motion:

“I would like to infomr [sic] the Honourable Court that there is some error in law in my decision. Decision maker just relied on COL [sic] Information and my previous facts which were in favor while rejecting my claim. Acual [sic] life occur different situation then what is mentioned in COL [sic] Information. The Officer and cours [sic] prefers to ignore the overwhelming [sic] of the evidence of this violence towards minorities searching for unrealistic silver lining. The Decision is betrary [sic] a bias and formula approach unlikely fairly access the danger of my life and clearly not reasonable.”

4.In her written submissions, she put forward further contentions which may be summarised as follows:

(1)     High standards of fairness are required in the determination of a torture claim on the part of the decision maker;

(2)     The adjudicator acted in a procedurally unfair manner without properly assessing the applicant’s credibility.

Analysis and Disposition

5.Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484) 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’s grounds in the present application are just bare assertions without particulars or evidence in support.  Her submissions are substantially the same as the ones she previously raised which had been dealt with in our judgment on 8 February 2024.  She did not identify any particular mistakes in our judgment, nor did she identify 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).

7.For the above reasons, we dismiss the Notice of Motion filed on 15 February 2024.

The Applicant (Appellant), acting in person