Re Udiri Appu Waduge Matilda Fernando

CACV 1215/2025, [2026] HKCA 1636

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 6307

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 1215 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 3286/2019)

____________________________

____________________________

____________________

J U D G M E N T

____________________

Hon K Yeung JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.On 3 March 2026, this court (Barma JA and Keith Yeung J) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge To (the “Judge”) given on 19 December 2025 refusing to grant leave for the applicant to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “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 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 applicant subsequently applies, by a Notice of Motion filed on 9 March 2026, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

4.In the Notice of Motion, the applicant states that she disagrees with the “decision of the Court”.  She says that her enemies, who intend to kill her, are still looking for her, and that if she is to be returned, she would be kill.  She says that “the learned Judges and the Adjudicator of the Appeal Board did not scrutinize my claim properly”.

5.In her written submissions dated 23 March 2026, the applicant repeats the background of her claim and raises complaints against the Board and the Judge, but otherwise fails to set out any supposed errors made by this Court.

6.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.

7.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.

8.The Notice of Motion in any event does not identify any supposed error in our judgment, not to mention any 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 filed on 9 March 2026 is dismissed.

The applicant acting in person