Dinh Thi Hau v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CAMP 248/2023, [2023] HKCA 1175

On An Intended Appeal From [2023] HKCFI 821 &
[2023] HKCFI 1699

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 248 OF 2023

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 957 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

Hon Chow JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.On 30 March 2023, Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung made an order refusing to grant the Applicant leave to apply for judicial review. The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 3 April 2019, whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 27 September 2017 rejecting her non-refoulement claim.

2.On 10 July 2023, the Judge refused to grant the Applicant an extension of time to appeal against his order of 30 March 2023.

3.On 31 August 2023, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s application for leave to appeal against the Judge’s order of 10 July 2023. The basic facts of this case and the Court’s reasons for dismissing the Applicant’s application have been set out in the CA Judgment and will not be repeated here.

4.By Notice of Motion dated 7 September 2023, the Applicant applies for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant states that if she returns to Vietnam, her life will be seriously threatened and she will be tortured, beaten or even killed because creditors and gangsters in Vietnam are cruel and violent and are willing to kill people to satisfy their anger and ferocity. She says that she cannot relocate to live in another part of Vietnam away from her home for various reasons. She also alleges that the Immigration Department did not consider her human rights under various instruments including the Basic Law and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

5.The Applicant has failed to lodge written submissions in support of her application for leave to appeal contrary to the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 7 September 2023.

6.Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, we determine the present application for leave to appeal on paper without an oral hearing.

7.Under s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484, an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal in any civil cause or matter if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal (as the case may be), 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 Court of Final Appeal for decision.

8.No question of great general or public importance involved in the proposed appeal is identified in the Notice of Motion. We are unable to see any such question being involved in the proposed appeal. The Applicant has not identified any error in the CA Judgment, or raised any viable ground of appeal against the CA Judgment. We are satisfied that the intended appeal has no merits and no reasonable prospect of success.

9.There is also no basis to grant leave to appeal on the “or otherwise” limb in s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance.

10.Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is refused and the Notice of Motion is dismissed.

The Applicant, acting in person