Re Ngo Thi Bich Thuy and Another

CACV 287/2024, [2025] HKCA 526

On appeal from [2024] HKCFI 1691

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 287 OF 2024

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 731 OF 2022)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Chu VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.On 8 April 2025, this court handed down our judgment ([2025] HKCA 315)  dismissing the 1^st and 2^nd applicants’ appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Lung given on 9 July 2024 refusing to give them leave to apply for judicial review in respect of their non-refoulement claims.

2.On 22 April 2025, the applicants filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal this court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicants have not lodged any written submission to support the application.  

3.Having considered the Notice of Motion, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on paper without an oral hearing.  We have therefore proceeded to determine the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents in the case.

4.The background to this case and the applicants’ claims have been set out in our judgment.  We will not repeat them.

5.Section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484, provides that leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal may be granted if 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.

6.The Notice of Motion contends that: (1)  the creditors and gangsters in Vietnam are cruel, violent and will readily kill people; the applicants will be tortured, beaten or killed by the creditor on their return to Vietnam; (2)  internal relocation is not feasible because the applicants will face many difficulties and obstacles, the 1^st applicant will be disadvantaged in the labour market and he may not be able to adapt and make a living; (3)  the gangsters will be able to track the applicants as they have a nationwide network and help from the corrupt government officials and police; and (4)  the Director has disregarded the applicants’ human right..  

7.We are of the view that what has been put forward by the applicants do not constitute viable grounds for giving leave to appeal. Importantly, no question of great general or public importance has been identified as required by section 22(1)(b)  of the Ordinance.  The matters contended in the Notice of Motion pertains to the personal circumstances of the applicants and their claims.  Further, they do not engage our reasons for dismissing the appeal (see [18] to [25] of our judgment)  and fail to show any error in our decision.  We also do not see any basis for the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

8.Accordingly, we dismiss the Notice of Motion.

The 1^st and 2^nd applicants, unrepresented, acted in person