Nguyen Thi Hong v. Torture Claims Appeal Board

CAMP 453/2021

[2022] HKCA 1598

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 453 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 1483 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

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

1.On 23 March 2022, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s application for “leave to appeal” against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan dated 17 June 2021 refusing to grant the Applicant an extension of time to appeal against the Judge’s earlier order dated 15 September 2020 whereby the Judge refused to grant the Applicant leave to apply for judicial review.

2.The Applicant now applies by Notice of Motion dated 20 September 2022 for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant stated that it was unsatisfactory that the Court of Appeal ruled that she had no chance of success in reviewing the decisions of the Torture Claims Appeal Board and Director of Immigration, and repeated the factual basis of her non-refoulement claim.

3.The Applicant has substantially delayed in making her application for leave to appeal, and has not given any explanation for the delay. She has also failed to lodge written submissions contrary to the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals dated 20 September 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