Dao Thi Bich Lien Alias Dao Thi Dung v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 223 /2023, [2025] HKCA 771

On appeal from [2023] HKCFI 1695

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 223 OF 2023

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 986 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

____________________

J U D G M E N T

____________________

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

1.This is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal handed down on 25 October 2024 ([2024] HKCA 989). The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung dated 30 June 2023 refusing to grant leave for the applicant to seek judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board concerning her non-refoulement claim.

2.Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, the Registrar of Civil Appeals had directed that the applicant shall lodge written submissions on or before 25 November 2024.  It was further directed that the Notice of Motion shall be determined on paper only without an oral hearing upon compliance with the said direction or the expiry of the time for complying with the direction.  The applicant did not lodge any written submissions by the prescribed deadline.  Having considered the papers of this case, we think it is appropriate to determine this application on paper and proceed to do so.

Analysis and disposition

3.Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484) provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, from any judgment of the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter, whether final or interlocutory, 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.

4.The applicant stated substantially the same grounds as the ones she advanced in her Notice of Appeal.  We have already considered her grounds of appeal and given our reasons for dismissing her appeal in our judgment dated 25 October 2024.  In the present application, she stated that the judgment of this Court is unsatisfactory, but failed to identify any particular mistakes or unfairness in our judgment.  She also failed to raise any question of great general or public importance which ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for determination in accordance with section 22(1)(b).  There is also no basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).

5.Therefore, we dismiss the Notice of Motion filed on 11 November 2024.