Le Van Do v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 62/2023, [2024] HKCA 188

On Appeal From [2023] HKCFI 329

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 62 OF 2023

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 85 OF 2019)

________________________

_____________________

_____________________

J U D G M E N T

_____________________

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

1.On 21 February 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 31 December 2018, whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 5 January 2017 rejecting his non-refoulement claim.

2.On 28 December 2023, the Court of Appeal (constituted by Yuen and Chow JJA) gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the Judge’s order of 21 February 2023. The basic facts of this case and the Court’s reasons for dismissing the Applicant’s appeal have been set out in the CA Judgment and will not be repeated here.

3.By Notice of Motion dated 5 January 2024, the Applicant applies for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant repeats his claim that he will be tortured, beaten or even killed by his creditor and gangsters if he returns to Vietnam, and disagrees with the Director’s assessment that he can move to live in another location away from his home in Vietnam for various reasons. He also alleges that the Immigration Department did not consider his human rights under, inter alia, the Basic Law and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

4.The Applicant has failed to lodge written submissions in support of his application contrary to the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals dated 5 January 2024.

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

6.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.

7.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.

8.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.

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

The Applicant, acting in person