Re Nguyen Van Nhuan

CACV 142/2022

[2022] HKCA 1302

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 142 OF 2022

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 754 of 2019)

_____________________

_____________________

Before:  Hon G Lam JA and Barnes J in Court

Date of Judgment:  5 September 2022 (Hearing by way of paper disposal)

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

Hon Barnes J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

Introduction

1.By a judgment (Judgment) [1]handed down on 21 July 2022 we dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung (“Judge”) made on 31March 2022[2] refusing to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/adjudicator of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dated 1 March 2019.  The background and reasons for our decision were fully set out in the Judgment and we will not repeat them here.  

2.The applicant, who is acting in person, filed a Notice of Motion dated 25 July 2022 for leave to appeal against our Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. 

3.In the Notice of Motion, the applicant disputed the Courts’ ruling that he had no chance of success, saying that he would be tortured and even killed by the gangsters if he were to return to Vietnam.  The claimant also said re-location in his case was not feasible.  He claimed that the Immigration Department did not consider his human rights.

4.The applicant did not file any written submissions as directed by the Registrar of Civil Appeals.  

5.We have read the Notice of Motion.  As provided in paragraph 3 of the Practice Direction 2.1, such leave applications are dealt with and determined on paper without an oral hearing.  We see no reason why this application cannot be disposed of on paper without a hearing.  

Discussion

6.Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484, leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal may be granted if 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.

7.The matters stated in the Notice of Motion do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant has not identified any question of great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b). 

8.We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

9.For the above reasons, the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met.  Accordingly, we dismiss the Notice of Motion.

The applicant, unrepresented, acted in person.

[1] See [2022] HKCA 1051

[2] See [2022] HKCFI 856