Tran Van Huyen and Another v. Torture Claims Appeal Board
Read the full judgment text of CAMP 165/2022 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 7 June 2024.
1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”). The applicants’ 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”). Their application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision was dismissed by the Court of First Instance. Their application for extension of time to appeal against that decision was dismissed by t
Cited by 1 case · Cites 1 case
|
CAMP 165/2022, [2024] HKCA 495 On Appeal From [2021] HKCFI 1655 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 165 OF 2022 (ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1551 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 applicants’ 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”). Their application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision was dismissed by the Court of First Instance. Their application for extension of time to appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court in our judgment dated 27 March 2024. 2.By Notice of Motion filed on 11 April 2024, the applicants seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA. In that document the applicants mainly stated why they would be in danger if they were repatriated to Vietnam. 3.The applicants did not lodge any written submissions in support of the present application. 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 applicants have 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 they have failed to show any prospects of success in the intended appeal. 6.Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.
The 1st and 2nd Applicants, unrepresented, acting in person | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under CAMP 165/2022