Vu Van Thiep v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 292/2024, [2025] HKCA 432

On Appeal From [2024] HKCFI 1696

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 292 OF 2024

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 578 OF 2024)

____________

____________

_________________

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 is a Vietnamese national whose 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 appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court in our judgment dated 13 March 2025.

2.By Notice of Motion filed on 21 March 2025, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA. In that document the applicant reiterated that he would be at risk of being harmed or killed if he returned to his home country and claimed that it is not feasible for him to relocate within Vietnam.

3.Despite having acknowledged the directions for written submissions to be lodged with the court, the applicant has not to date lodged any submissions for the present application. 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.

4.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.

5.Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.

The Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person