Nguyen Thi Thanh v. Torture Claims Appeal Board

CACV 214/2025, [2026] HKCA 1526

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 1548

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 214 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 306 OF 2020)

____________

____________

_________________

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 15 September 2025.

2.By Notice of Motion filed on 3 October 2025 (her duplicated motion filed on 13 January 2026 is hereby expunged), the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA.  In that document the applicant essentially merely reiterated the risks she faced if she were to return to Vietnam.  Her written submissions dated 12 January 2026 set out certain passages from various authorities but did not show how they are relevant to her application.

3.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.

5.Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.

The Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person