Ha Minh Thoai v. Torture Claims Appeal Board /Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 45/2022

[2022] HKCA 1354

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 45 OF 2022

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1312 OF 2018)

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

Before:  Hon G Lam and Chow JJA in Court

Date of Judgment:  16 September 2022

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.On 21 July 2022, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”)  dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung dated 14 January 2022 refusing to grant her leave to apply for judicial review. The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 3 July 2018. The Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 3 November 2016.

2.The Applicant now applies by Notice of Motion dated 8 August 2022 for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant repeated her claim for non-refoulement protection.  She stated that she could not move to live in another location in Vietnam to avoid the pursuit of her creditor and gangsters, because there would be many difficulties and obstacles that she would have to face in the new location, her health was not good, she was not an active person, she might be disadvantaged in the labour market due to the fact that she was near retirement age (the Applicant was born in 1974 and is now 48 years of age), and there was no guarantee that she would be able to adapt to the new place and find a job to earn money to support herself.  She also alleged that the Immigration Department did not consider her human rights under various instruments including the Basic Law and the ICCPR.  In her affirmation filed in support of the Notice of Motion, the Applicant stated that she understood that there was a good ground of appeal that was not necessarily considered at the stage of applying for leave to apply for judicial review, but failed to identify what that ground might be.

3.The Applicant has failed to file any written submissions contrary to the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals dated 8 August 2022.

4.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 the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal in any civil cause or matter if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal (as the case may be), 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.

5.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.  We are satisfied that the intended appeal has no merits and no reasonable prospect of success.  There is also no basis to grant leave to appeal on the “or otherwise” limb in s 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance.

6.Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is refused and the Notice of Motion is dismissed.

The Applicant, acting in person