Le Thi Duc v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CAMP 224/2023, [2023] HKCA 1364

On Appeal From [2023] HKCA 1092

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 224 OF 2023

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 81 OF 2019)

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

________________________

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 18 October 2023.

2.By Notice of Motion filed on 2 November 2023, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA.  In that document the applicant reiterated that her life would be in danger if she returned to Vietnam, claiming that it was not feasible for her to relocate within her country.

3.The applicant did not lodge any written submissions in support of her present application despite the Registrar of Civil Appeals’ direction for her to do so.

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 she 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