Re Nguyen Van Giap

CACV 44/2022

[2023] HKCA 464

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 44 OF 2022

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1532 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.This is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”). The applicant is a Vietnamese national whose claim for non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong was rejected by the Director of Immigration and by the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”). His application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision was dismissed by the Court of First Instance. His appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court in our judgment dated 30 January 2023.

2.By Notice of Motion filed on 14 February 2023, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA.  In that document the applicant stated that he will be tortured or even killed by gangsters if he returns to Vietnam, because the gangsters in Vietnam are different from those in Hong Kong and are cruel and violent.  He says that it is not feasible for him to relocate within Vietnam to avoid his creditor, because his health is not good, he is not an active person, and there is no guarantee he will be able to adapt to the new place and find a job.  He claims that with the nationwide network of gangsters and clandestine connections with corrupt people in the government and police, it will be quite possible for the creditor to find out his new residence.  He says that the Immigration Department in Hong Kong did not consider his human rights.

3.Despite having acknowledged the directions for written submissions to be lodged with the court by 28 February 2023, the applicant has not to date lodged any submissions for the present application. There is no reason for us to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on the basis of the available materials without an oral hearing, as set out in paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1.

4.We take the view that this application ought to be dismissed because the applicant has not shown that the intended appeal raises any question which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the CFA for decision (which is the condition for giving leave to appeal under section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484), and also because he has failed to show any prospects of success in the intended appeal.

5.Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.

The Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person