Re Castillote Jovelyn Soriano and Another

CACV 279/2025, [2026] HKCA 1553

On Appeal From [2026] HKCA 621

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 279 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2374 OF 2019)

_______________

_______________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

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

1.On 24 April 2026, the applicants[1] filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against this court’s judgment of 10 April 2026 (“the Judgment”) ([2026] HKCA 621).  In the Judgment, we dismissed the applicants’ appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung (“the Judge”) dated 29 April 2025, by which the Judge refused their application for leave to apply for judicial review ([2025] HKCFI 1267).

2.The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as this court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in the Judgment.  We will not repeat them here.  After reviewing the Notice of Motion, we see no reason to deviate from the usual practice to consider this application on paper pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1.

3.Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484) (“the HKCFAO”) provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of this court or the Court of Final Appeal 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.

4.In their Notice of Motion, the applicants stated:

“1. The TCAB and the Director failed to provide proper reason that we will be safe in our country with my minor child, who born in Hong Kong and currently stateless person we will be face risk from my enemies upon refoulement.

2. The TCAB and the Director failed to proper consider the Country of Origin information that the Authority of my Country would not able to protect me from enimy.

3. My Appeal Judgement was dismissed and the Honourable Judges confirm the Decision from TCAB and the Director but failed to proper consider BOR 2 and BOR 3 risk.” (sic)

5.Pursuant to Practice Direction 2.1, the applicants lodged written submissions on 5 May 2026 in support of the present application.  In those submissions, the applicants cited various case law on the requirement of high standards of fairness, Wednesbury unreasonableness and procedural fairness, as well as provisions from the Basic Law, the United Nations Convention Against Torture, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance (Cap 383).  However, the applicants have failed to condescend upon particulars as to how these provisions are relevant to their case.

6.In our view, the applicants’ application is plainly devoid of merit.  Their assertions are all vague, bare and unsupported by any particulars.  General assertions of fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].  More importantly, the applicants failed to point out with specific particulars any error in the Judgment.  There is no substance to the applicants’ complaints.  Their assertions are also not proper grounds of appeal.

7.Further and in any event, even taking them at their highest, their allegations remain fact-specific and do not relate to any question of great general or public importance.

8.Accordingly, the applicants have not identified any question of great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.

9.For these reasons, the applicants’ intended appeal has no merit and we dismiss the Notice of Motion.

10.For the avoidance of doubt, the absence of legal representation for the 2^nd applicant in this application is treated as an irregularity without rendering their application a nullity.

The applicants acting in person

[1]  The 1^st applicant acts in person and also on behalf of her daughter, the 2^nd applicant, who is a minor.