Tran Van Ngoc v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Read the full judgment text of CAMP 164/2023 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 18 October 2023.
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”). His application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision was dismissed by the Court of First Instance. His application for extension of time to appeal against that decision was dismissed by this
Cited by 1 case · Cites 1 case
|
CAMP 164/2023, [2023] HKCA 1140 On Appeal From [2023] HKCA 822 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 164 OF 2023 (ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2090 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”). His application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision was dismissed by the Court of First Instance. His application for extension of time to appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court in our judgment dated 11 July 2023. 2.By Notice of Motion filed on 10 August 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 the creditor and gangsters in Vietnam are cruel and violent and are willing to kill people. He stated that it is not feasible for him to live in a new location in Vietnam, and that it is quite possible for the creditor and his youngsters to find him given their network and connections. He stated that the Immigration Department did not consider his human rights. 3.The applicant did not lodge any written submissions as directed by the Registrar of Civil Appeals. 4.There is no reason for us to depart from the usual practice of determining an application for leave to appeal 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 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under CAMP 164/2023