Re Pham Quang Vinh

CAMP 184/2022

[2023] HKCA 466

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 184 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 26 OF 2022)

________________________

________________________

________________________

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’s claim for non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“Director”)  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 (although the judge seems to have treated it as targeted at the Director’s subsequent decision not to accept a subsequent non-refoulement claim). His application for extension of time to appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court in our judgment dated 30 January 2023.

2.By Notice of Motion filed on 7 February 2023, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA.  In that document the applicant stated that if he returns to Vietnam his life will be seriously threatened because creditors and gangsters in Vietnam are cruel and violent and are willing to kill people to satisfy their anger and ferocity.  He also stated that it is not feasible for him to relocate within Vietnam because his health is not good, he is not an active person, and there is no guarantee that he will be able to adapt to the new place and find a job.  He said that with the nationwide network of gangsters and clandestine connections with corrupt people in the government and police, it would be quite possible for his creditor to find out his new residence.  He complained that the Immigration Department did not consider his human rights.

3.The applicant has not lodged any written submissions in support of the present application.

4.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.

5.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.

6.Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.

The Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person