Marticio Melcris Andoy v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 251/2025, [2026] HKCA 1884

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 1688

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 251 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 127 OF 2020)

________________________

BETWEEN

_____________________

J U D G M E N T

_____________________

Hon Kwan VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.This is the applicant’s notice of motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal handed down on 6 November 2025 ([2025] HKCA 973).  The Court of Appeal rejected the appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Martin Wong dated 25 April 2025 refusing to grant leave for the applicant to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) concerning her non-refoulement claim.

2.Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, the Registrar of Civil Appeals had directed that the notice of motion shall be determined on paper without an oral hearing.  The applicant lodged her written submissions on 25 November 2025.  Having considered the written submissions and the papers, we think it is appropriate to determine this application on paper and proceed to do so.

Grounds of appeal

3.The applicant stated the following grounds of appeal in the notice of motion:

(1)  Failure to consider the fact raised in her claim;

(2)  Failure to consider that, as an ordinary woman, the applicant would face social discrimination and persecution from her enemy who still keeps imposing threats on her and her family; and

(3)  Failure to consider her claim under BOR 2 and BOR 3 risks and the claim assessment was not proper.

4.Her submissions in this application are substantially the same as the ones she had advanced to this court in her appeal.  In the present application, she added that the judges did not focus on her fear that her life would be in danger, the Board and the Director of Immigration are misguided or cherry-picked the country of origin information, they failed to consider humanitarian reasons that she would not be free of risk as her problem in her country is not yet solved, and that her life and her son’s life will be in danger upon refoulement.

Analysis and disposition

5.Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484) 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.

6.The applicant’s grounds and submissions are substantially the same as the ones she raised which had been dealt with in our decision on 6 November 2025.  We have already found that those grounds and submissions are bare assertions without sufficient particulars or evidence in support.

7.She did not identify any particular mistakes in our decision, nor did she identify any question of great general or public importance which ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for determination in accordance with section 22(1)(b).  There is also no basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).

8.For the above reasons, we dismiss the notice of motion filed on 14 November 2025.

The Applicant (Appellant), acting in person