Re v. Thi Sinh

CAMP 20/2022

[2023] HKCA 534

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 20 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1271 OF 2018)

____________________

____________________

_________________

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 and by the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”). Her application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision was dismissed by the Court of First Instance. Her 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 15 February 2023, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA.  In that document the applicant stated that if she returns to Vietnam, her life will be seriously threatened, because creditors in Vietnam are cruel and violent and willing to kill people to satisfy their anger and ferocity.  She stated that it is completely infeasible for her to relocate within Vietnam because her health is not good, she is not an active person, and there is no guarantee she will be able to adapt to the new place and find a job.  She said 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 her new residence.  She said that the Immigration Department did not consider her human rights.

3.Despite the directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals dated 15 February 2023 for the applicant to lodge written submissions, she has not to date lodged any written submissions.

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 she has failed to show any prospects of success in the intended appeal.

6.Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.