Pham Van Quyet v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CAMP 313/2023, [2024] HKCA 165

On Appeal From [2023] HKCA 1325

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 313 OF 2023

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 755 OF 2023)

____________

____________

_________________

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 12 December 2023.

2.By Notice of Motion filed on 21 December 2023, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA.  In that document the applicant stated that the judges were wrong (as we understand his wording) not to have applied the principle of irrationality to the decision of the Director of Immigration; that there is some error of law in the decision; that the decision-maker just relied on country of origin information and previous facts in rejecting the applicant’s claim; that actual situation was different from the country of origin information; and that the judge did not apply the law properly.

3.The applicant has not lodged any written submissions, contrary to the directions of 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