Re Nguyen Thi Kim Hoang

CACV 14/2023, [2023] HKCA 843

On Appeal from [2023] HKCA 574

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 14 OF 2023

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 233/2019)

_____________

_____________

_______________

JUDGMENT

_______________

Hon Lisa Wong J (giving the judgment of the court):

Application

1.Before the court is a notice of motion filed on 8 May 2023 for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”) against the judgment dated 5 May 2023[1] of this court (G Lam JA and Lisa Wong J) (“Judgment”). By the Judgment, this court dismissed the applicant’s appeal from a decision dated 6 January 2023[2]by Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung (“Judge”), refusing her leave to apply for judicial review of the decision dated 28 February 2019 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) concerning her non-refoulement claim.

Paper disposal appropriate

2.Pursuant to the direction of the Registrar of Civil Appeals, unless this court otherwise directs, the notice of motion shall be determined on paper on the basis of the written materials filed with the court without an oral hearing. We agree that paper disposal is appropriate in this case.

Statutory threshold for leave to appeal to the CFA

3.Under s 22(1)(b) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484), an appeal shall lie to the CFA at the discretion of the Court of Appeal (“CA”) or the CFA from any civil judgment of the CA if 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 CFA for decision.

Applicant’s contentions in support of leave to appeal to CFA

4.In seeking leave to appeal to the CFA, the applicant first asserted in the notice of motion as follows (sic):

“1. Failure to consider the fact I had raised in my claim that why I would be face risk in my country if I return there, my enemies are still looking for me, by which my life will be at danger if I return to my country.

2. The Torture Claims Appeal Board (TCAB) and the Director of Immigration (Director’s did not consider properly the fact and my fear, that the authority of my country of origin would not able to protect me from my enemies.

3. Failure to consider my (eligible) order BOR 2 and BOR 3 risk.”

5.Second, on 17 May 2023, the applicant lodged written submission, by which she reiterated that the Board, the Judge and this court have under-estimated the risk of harm she would face if she should return to her home country.

Discussion and disposition

6.We have given detailed reasons for dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the refusal of leave for judicial review. See [18]-[23] of the Judgment. The applicant has made no attempt to engage our reasons.

7.The applicant has plainly not identified any specific error in the Judgment that raises any, or any arguable, issue for determination by the CFA, whether of great, general or public importance or otherwise.

8.Nor do we see any scope to grant leave under the “or otherwise” limb.

9.As neither of the statutory criteria under s 22(1)(b) for leave to appeal to the CFA is met, we dismiss the notice of motion.

The applicant, unrepresented, acted in person