Nakazibwe Joanita v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 90/2026, [2026] HKCA 1801

On Appeal from [2026] HKCFI 152

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 90 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2463 OF 2020)

________________________

BETWEEN

_____________________

_____________________

JUDGMENT

_____________________

Hon H. Au-Yeung J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

THE APPLICATION

1.On 2 April 2026, this Court handed down a judgment ([2026] HKCA 599) (“the Judgment”) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-Refoulement Claims) Vincent Lung (“the Judge”) dated 26 January 2026 refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review.  The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dismissing her appeal from the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) rejecting her non-refoulement claim.

2.The facts and issues in the applicant’s appeal, as well as the reasons for dismissing it, were set out in the Judgment.  We will not repeat them here.

3.By a Notice of Motion filed on 8 April 2026, the applicant applied for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal by stating that:

“Dear Sir/Madam,

I would like to infomr the Honourable Court that there is some error in law in my decision.  Decision maker just relied on COL Information and my previous facts which were in favor while rejecting my claim.  Acual life occur different situation then what is mentioned in COL Information.  The Officer and cours prefers to ignore the overwhelming of the evidence of this violence towards minorities searching for unrealistic silver lining.  The Decision is betrary a bias and formula approach unlikely fairly access the danger of my life and clearly not reasonable.”

4.In her written submissions lodged on 17 April 2026, she says there are some grounds which were ignored and not followed by the Director, the Board and the Judge and refers to various legal principles without explaining the ways in which those principles are engaged in the present application.

5.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 paper.  We have, therefore, determined the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents before the Court.

DISCUSSION

6.Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484, Laws of Hong Kong) (“the 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, from any judgment of the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter, whether final or interlocutory, 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.

7.In the present application, the applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine.  Nor is any such question apparent to us from the matters which she has raised.

8.Further, the Notice of Motion has not identified any error in the Judgment. 

9.We are therefore satisfied that this application has no merits.  Neither do we see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance.

DISPOSITION

10.For the above reasons, the matters advanced by the applicant do not constitute valid grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. 

11.The Notice of Motion filed on 8 April 2026 is therefore dismissed with no order as to costs.

The applicant, acting in person