Nong Thi Ha v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 112/2025, [2026] HKCA 435

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 694

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 112 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1586 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”). Her application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision was dismissed by the Court of First Instance. Her appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court in our judgment dated 25 September 2025.

2.By Notice of Motion filed on 30 December 2025, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA. In that document the applicant repeated that she would face harm if she returned to Vietnam, asserted that it was not feasible for her to relocate in her country, and stated that the Immigration Apartment disregarded her human rights.

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 she has failed to show any prospects of success in the intended appeal. Furthermore, the Notice of Motion was filed substantially out of time.

5.Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.

The Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person