Trinh Thi Hien v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CAMP 70 /2024, [2025] HKCA 827

On appeal from [2024] HKCFI 18

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 70 OF 2024

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1183 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

____________________

J U D G M E N T

____________________

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

1.This is the applicant’s Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal handed down on 26 November 2024 ([2024] HKCA 1095). The Court of Appeal refused to grant extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung dated 3 January 2024 dismissing the application for leave to seek judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board concerning the applicant’s 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 18 December 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 has not lodged 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.

Grounds of appeal

3.The applicant stated the following grounds of appeal in the Notice of Motion:

(1)  It is unsatisfactory that the Court of Appeal ruled that the applicant had no chance of success in reviewing the decisions of the Torture Claims Appeal Board and the Director of Immigration;

(2)  If the applicant returns to Vietnam, her life will be seriously threatened or she will probably be killed because the creditors and gangsters in Vietnam are different from those in Hong Kong.  They disregard the law and are willing to kill people;

(3)  It is completely unfeasible for her to change to live in another location as she will face many difficulties and obstacles;

(4)  With the nationwide social network of the gangsters and their clandestine connections with corrupt people in the government and police apparatus, it is quite possible for the creditor and gangsters to find out the applicant’s new residence;

(5)  The Director of Immigration did not consider the human rights under the Basic Law or the “Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act”, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

Analysis and disposition

4.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.

5.The applicant’s grounds in the Notice of Motion were not raised in the leave application before the Court of First Instance or in her previous application before the Court of Appeal.  It is not open to her to put forward these grounds for the first time at this late stage of the proceedings, well outside the time limit for bringing judicial review proceedings.  In any event, these grounds are just bare assertions without particulars or evidence in support.

6.In the present application, the applicant has not identified any particular mistakes in our decision, nor has she identified 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).

7.For the above reasons, we dismiss the Notice of Motion filed on 4 December 2024.