Lee Flower Joy Esteva and Another v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 1066/2025, [2026] HKCA 1520

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 5405

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 1066 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 3499 OF 2019)

__________________________

BETWEEN

__________________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

Hon Mimmie Chan J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.On 16 July 2026, this court (Barma JA and Mimmie Chan J) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicants’ appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 11 November 2025 refusing to grant leave for the applicants to apply for judicial review. The applicants had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dismissing their appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting their non-refoulement claim.

2.The facts and issues in the applicants’ appeal, 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 applicants subsequently applied, by a Notice of Motion filed on 21 July 2026, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

4.In the Notice of Motion, the applicants stated, without elaboration nor particulars, that they disagreed with the judgment of this Court and that it was “unreasonable”.

5.In breach of Practice Direction 2.1, the applicants failed to lodge written submissions in support of their application. They are therefore debarred from doing so, and we will determine this application on the basis of the materials filed.

6.Having considered the applicants’ 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 applicants’ application on the basis of the documents filed.

7.The matters stated by the applicants do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicants have 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 they have raised.

8.The Notice of Motion does not identify any supposed error in our judgment and it raises no ground that is reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.

9.We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

10.For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 21 July 2026 is dismissed.

The applicants acting in person