Case Document

100%Judiciary

CACV 255/2021

[2022] HKCA 320

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 255 OF 2021

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2775 OF 2018)

____________

RE:

LE THI HANG

Applicant

____________

Before:

Hon Chu and G Lam JJA in Court

Date of Written Submissions:	31 December 2021
Date of Judgment:	3 March 2022

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

Hon G Lam JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.The applicant is a Vietnamese national whose non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration and the Torture Claims Appeal Board/adjudicator of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office. Her application for leave for judicial review of the Board’s decision was rejected by Deputy High Court Judge To,[1] and her appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court on 28 October 2021.[2]

2.The relevant facts and procedural history and the reasons for dismissing the appeal have been set out in our previous judgment and will not be repeated here.

3.The applicant now seeks, by Notice of Motion dated 22 December 2021, leave to appeal further to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the applicant reiterated some of the background facts of her claim, but did not raise any identifiable grounds of appeal or questions for determination by the Court of Final Appeal.

4.Pursuant to the directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals under Practice Direction 2.1, this application is dealt with on paper without an oral hearing.

5.In her written submissions of 31 December 2021, the applicant reiterated in somewhat greater detail the facts of her claim and the basis for her fear of harm upon returning to her country. However, she still did not set out any grounds of appeal or specific questions said to arise from the intended appeal.

6.Having considered the materials available, we are satisfied that there is no reasonable prospect in the intended appeal or any question involved which, by reason of its great general or public importance, ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484). Nor do we see why the applicant should, for some other reason, be allowed to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

7.The Notice of Motion is therefore dismissed.