Nguyen Thi Hai v. Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petiton Office
Read the full judgment text of CACV 189/2021 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 19 November 2021.
1. On 24 September 2021, this Court gave its judgment (“ the CA Judgment ”) dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung dated 14 April 2021 refusing to grant to the Applicant leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 9 November 2017.
Cited by 1 case
|
CACV 189/2021 [2021] HKCA 1699 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO 189 OF 2021 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1432 OF 2018) ____________________
____________________ Before: Hon Yuen and Chow JJA in Court Date of Written Submissions: 18 October 2021 Date of Judgment: 19 November 2021 ____________________ JUDGMENT ____________________ Hon Chow JA (giving the Judgment of the Court): 1.On 24 September 2021, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung dated 14 April 2021 refusing to grant to the Applicant leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 9 November 2017. 2.The Applicant now applies by Notice of Motion dated 8 October 2021 for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant states that it was unsatisfactory that the Court of Appeal ruled that she had no chance of success in reviewing the Board’s decision, and repeats her claim for non-refoulement protection. 3.Under s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484, an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of, inter alia, the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal 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. 4.No question of great general or public importance involved in the proposed appeal is identified in the Notice of Motion. We are unable to see any such question being involved in the proposed appeal. There is also no basis to grant leave to appeal on the “otherwise” limb in s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance. 5.Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is refused and the Notice of Motion is dismissed.
The applicant, unrepresented, appeared in person |
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under CACV 189/2021