Re Arisanti

CACV 388/2024, [2026] HKCA 1690

On Appeal From [2024] HKCFI 2432

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 388 OF 2024

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2040 OF 2019)

_____________________

_____________________

_____________________

DECISION

_____________________

Hon Cheung JA (giving the Decision of the Court) :

I. Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal

1.On 13 March 2025, this Court handed down the judgment ([2025] HKCA 251) dismissing the applicant’s application to appeal an order of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung given on 23 September 2024 refusing her application for leave to apply for judicial review in respect of her non ‑ refoulement claim. 

2.On 29 July 2025, the applicant filed a notice of motion and affirmation applying for leave to appeal this Court’s order to the Court of Final Appeal out of time.  The applicant also lodged written submissions consisting of two pages on 8 August 2025. 

2)  Our view

3.Having considered the applicant’s documents, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on paper without an oral hearing.  We have, therefore, proceeded to determine the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents in the case.

4.The background to this case and the applicant’s claim have been set out in our judgment.  We will not repeat them.

5.Section 24(2) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (‘HKCFAO’) (Cap. 484) provides that application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal shall be filed within 28 days from the date of the judgment to be appealed from.  Section 24(5) further provides that the Court of Appeal may extend the time for the filing of the notice of motion.

6.The applicant’s present application is out of time by over three months.  In his affirmation, the applicant did not give explanation as to her lateness in filing her notice of motion.

7.As to the merit of the intended appeal, section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO provides that leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal may be granted 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.

8.The notice of motion simply stated without elaboration that the applicant was not satisfied with the decision, the decision was unfair, the Judge favoured the decisions of the Immigration Department and the Board, and many things were being ignored.

9.The two‑page written submission by the applicant contains six points that could be summarized as follows :

1)  The rejection of the applicant’s asylum claim was unfair;

2)  The decision was devoid of cogent reasoning;

3)  The Judge failed to appreciate state acquiescence;

4)  The Judge failed to attain the high standard of fairness required by the Wednesbury test;

5)  The points in the applicant’s case were ignored, and if refouled, the applicant’s life would be worse;

6)  Torture and death is commonplace in Indonesia.

10.We are of the view that the grounds and arguments put forward by the applicant do not constitute viable grounds for giving leave to appeal.  Importantly, no question of great general or public importance has been identified as required by section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.

11.Nor do we see any basis for the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).

3)  Disposition

12.For these reasons, we give no extension of time for the filing of the notice of motion dated 29 July 2025, and it is dismissed.

Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person