Le Thi Huong v. Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CAMP 215/2021

[2021] HKCA 1871

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 215 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1129 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

Before: Hon Au and Chow JJA in Court

Date of Written Submission: 12 November 2021

Date of Judgment:  14 December 2021

________________________

JUDGMENT

________________________

Hon Chow JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.On 26 October 2021, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s application for “leave to appeal” against the decision dated 2 June 2021 made by Deputy High Court Judge Torefusing the Applicant’s application for an extension of time to appeal. The intended appeal was against the decision dated 23 March 2021 made by Deputy High Court Judge C P Pang refusing to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office/Torture Claims Appeal Board dated 8 May 2018.

2.The Applicant now applies by Notice of Motion dated 5 November 2021 for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the following is stated:

“1 The learned Judges were wrong as a matter of law for not having applied the principles of irrationality to the decision made by the Director of Immigration refusing my application for Leave for Judicial Review and the Appeal; and

2  The learned Judges were wrong as a matter of law for not having applied the principle of procedural unfairness to the decision of the Director.”

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, acting in person