Re Le Thi Hong Phung

CACV 979/2025, [2026] HKCA 1439

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 4741

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 979 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1060 OF 2025)

________________________

________________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

Hon K Yeung JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.On 5 February 2026, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the order made by Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung on 23 October 2025 refusing to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 24 March 2025.

2.The applicant now applies by Notice of Motion dated 4 March 2026 for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the applicant asserts that “It was unsatisfactory that the Court of Appeal ruled in the [CA Judgment] that I had no chance of success in reviewing the TCAB’s decision.” She otherwise essentially repeats the grounds of appeal she set out in the Notice of Appeal dated 6 November 2025.

3.In her written submissions of 9 March 2026, the applicant only recites certain authorities and makes some generic and non-specific submissions on the general legal principles applicable to non-refoulement claims.  She has failed to deal with the facts, and has failed to identify any error or question of law.

4.Under s22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484, an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of, inter alia, the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal, 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.No question of great general or public importance involved in the proposed appeal is identified in the Notice of Motion or written submissions.  We are unable to see any such question being involved in the proposed appeal.  There is also no basis to grant leave to appeal on the “otherwise” limb in s22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance.

6.Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is refused and the Notice of Motion is dismissed.

The applicant, acting in person.