Delicana Tita Domingo v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 150/2026, [2026] HKCA 1796

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 982

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 150 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1374 OF 2025)

____________

____________

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

Hon G Lam JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.This is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”).  The applicant is a national of the Philippines whose claim for non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong was rejected by the Director of Immigration and by the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”).  Her application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision was dismissed by the Court of First Instance.  Her appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court in our judgment dated 12 May 2026.

2.By Notice of Motion filed on 18 May 2026, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA.  In that document the applicant stated that her life is in danger in her home country and asked to be given 4 to 5 years in Hong Kong so that she could save her life.

3.In her written submissions she stated she had not been provided with proper legal and language assistance.  She also claimed that the Board had fettered its discretion, acted with procedural unfairness, came to an irrational decision, and failed to meet the greater care and duty owed to a self-represented claimant, but these allegations were wholly unparticularised.

4.There is no reason for us to depart from the usual practice of determining an application for leave to appeal on the basis of the available materials without an oral hearing, as set out in paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1.

5.We take the view that this application ought to be dismissed because the applicant has not shown that the intended appeal raises any question which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the CFA for decision (which is the condition for giving leave to appeal under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484), and also because she has failed to show any prospects of success in the intended appeal.

6.Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.

The Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person