Nalule Irene v. Torture Claims Appeal Board

Case No.CACV 719/2025[2026] HKCA 1708

Court

Court of Appeal

Date25 Sep 2026

Judge—

Case Document

100%

CACV 719/2025, [2026] HKCA 1708

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 3809

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 719 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 9 OF 2020)

________________________

BETWEEN

	NALULE IRENE	Applicant
	and
	TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD	Putative
		Respondent
	and
	DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION	Putative
		Interested Party

_____________________

Before:

Hon Poon CJHC and Ng J in Court

Date of Written Submissions:	10 April 2026
Date of Judgment:	25 September 2026

_____________________

J U D G M E N T

_____________________

The Court:

1.By a judgment dated 17 March 2026, this Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the order of S T Poon J dated 29 August 2025, refusing her leave to apply for judicial review in respect of her non-refoulement claims.

2.By a notice of motion dated 24 March 2026, the applicant applied to us for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal under section 22(1) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484)[1] on the ground that (sic):

“I would Like to notify the Court of final appeal of my dismay to the decision or Judgement of Hon Poon CJHC and NG J in Court. I am not satisfied with the Judgement and would seek for a review and overturn of this Judgement as there is an error of Law and procedural unfairness. I cannot return to my country now.”

3.In her 6-page written submissions, the applicant repeats the factual basis of her non-refoulement claim. She also says she disagrees with the decisions of the Director and the Board, and makes some general allegations in respect of those decisions and the decision of the Judge.

4.The notice of motion does not meet the statutory threshold for leave to be granted because it fails to (a) state any error in our judgment; (b) raise any viable ground of appeal that is reasonably arguable; or (c) identify any question of great general or public importance involved in the intended appeal; and there is no basis to grant leave to appeal on the “or otherwise” limb.

5.In consequence, we refuse to grant leave and dismiss the notice of motion.

(Jeremy Poon)
Chief Judge of the
High Court

(Peter Ng)
Judge of the Court of
First Instance

The applicant, unrepresented, acting in person

[1] Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance 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 in any civil cause or matter 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.

Summaries and metadata are generated from the judgment. Report an error

Cites 1 case

Cases cited in this judgment

Nalule Irene v. Torture Claims Appeal Board

[2025] HKCFI 3809 · High Court CFI

29 Aug 2025