Re Nguyen Thi Le Huong and Another

CACV 199/2022, [2023] HKCA 1089

On Appeal From [2022] HKCA 1673

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 199 OF 2022

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1561 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 1^st applicant is a Vietnamese national born in 1980 and the 2^nd applicant is her son born in Hong Kong in 2015. Their claims for non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong were rejected by the Director of Immigration and by the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”). Their application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision was dismissed by the Court of First Instance. Their appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court in our judgment dated 23 November 2022.

2.By Notice of Motion filed on 13 July 2023, the applicants seek leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA.  That document stated that the judges were wrong in not having applied the “principle of irrationality” to the Director’s decision, that there was some error of law in the decision and that the decision-maker just relied on country of origin information and previous facts in rejecting the applicant’s claim, and that the actual situation was different from the country of origin information and that there was overwhelming evidence of violence towards minorities.  In the accompanying affirmation of the 1^st applicant, she stated that she understood there was a good ground of appeal that had not necessarily been considered before, but she did not identify any such ground.

3.Despite having acknowledged the directions for written submissions to be lodged with the court, the applicants have 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 applicants have 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 they have failed to show any prospects of success in the intended appeal.  Further, the application has been made long after the expiry of the 28-day period prescribed in the Ordinance, and no explanation of the delay has been provided by the applicants.

5.Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.

The Applicants, acting in person