Re Siti Ngaisah and Others

CACV 359/2024, [2026] HKCA 1895

On Appeal From [2024] HKCFI 2083

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 359 OF 2024

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1313 of 2019)

_____________________

_____________________

_____________________

DECISION

_____________________

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

I. Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal

1.On 28 August 2025, this Court (Cheung JA and K Yeung J (as he then was)) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicants’ appeal against the decision of DHCJ KW Lung dated 27 August 2024 refusing leave for judicial review.

2.The facts and issues of the appeal as well as the Court’s reasons for dismissing it are set out in our judgment.  We will not repeat them here.

3.The applicants now apply, by a notice of motion filed on 11 September 2025, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicants stated in their notice of motion the following :

‘ I would like to inform the Court of Final Appeal there some error in my law maker authorities. I am disagree with the decision. There are not proper investigation in my claim the authorities just relied on some web news which officially not recognized. My life is in danger and my children as well. I can’t relocate in my country with my children. There is totally unfair with my and with my children. I do not think my claim determined fairly.’

4.The applicants’ written submissions stated the following in summary :

1)  The applicants’ case was not determined fairly;

2)  The applicants did not have the decision translated to them; without knowing how the case was determined, it was not easy for the applicants to appeal;

3)  The lack of assistance is an error of law;

4)  The authorities should put aside the policy of trying to dispose non‑refoulement claims quickly;

5)  The applicants were never provided with legal and language assistance;

6)  The authorities’ quick disposal of non-refoulement cases is unacceptable;

7)  The respondent’s decision was unreasonable or irrational in the public law sense or a result of procedural error.

II.  Our view

5.Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) (‘Ordinance’) leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal will only be granted if the question to be determined involves great general or public importance or otherwise ought to be determined by the Court of Final Appeal.

6.The matters stated by the applicants in their notice of motion and written submissions are broad and vague assertions that do not pertain to nor explain and elaborate on the particular circumstances of the applicants.  For example, it is factually incorrect to state that the applicants never had any legal or language assistance, see the Board’s decisions (11 April 2019 at [7] and 23 May 2024 at [6]).  Findings of fact are within the province of the Board.  The applicants have failed to identify any question of great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine in accordance with section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance.  Nor is there any such question apparent to us from the matters raised by the applicants. 

7.We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance.

III.  Disposition

8.For these reasons, the notice of motion dated 11 September 2025 is dismissed.

The 1^st to 3^rd Applicants, unrepresented, acting in person