Tran Van Xuan and Another v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 367 & 368/2023, [2025] HKCA 830

On appeal from [2023] HKCFI 2848

(Heard together)

CACV 367/2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 367 OF 2023

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2257 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

AND

CACV 368/2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 368 OF 2023

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 3708 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

(Heard together)

____________________

J U D G M E N T

____________________

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

1.The applicants filed their 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 1100). The Court of Appeal rejected their appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge To dated 3 November 2023 refusing to grant leave for them to seek judicial review against the decisions of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) concerning their non-refoulement claims.

2.Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, the Registrar of Civil Appeals had directed that the applicants shall lodge written submissions on or before 12 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 applicants have 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.In the Notice of Motion, the applicants stated that it is unsatisfactory for the Court of Appeal to rule that they had no chance of success in reviewing the decision of the Board, and reiterated the grounds they raised in the appeal.

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.In the present application, the applicants have not provided any particulars or evidence to support their contention that our decision is unsatisfactory.  The rest of their grounds have already been dealt with in our judgment of 26 November 2024.  The applicants failed to identify any particular mistakes in our judgment.  They also failed to identify 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).

6.For the above reasons, we dismiss the Notice of Motion filed on 28 November 2024.