Vu Ngoc Lam and Another v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 689/2025, [2026] HKCA 1799

On Appeal from [2025] HKCFI 3786

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 689 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 3378 OF 2019)

________________________

BETWEEN

_____________________

_____________________

JUDGMENT

_____________________

Hon H. Au-Yeung J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

THE APPLICATION

1.On 8 April 2026, this Court handed down a judgment ([2026] HKCA 612) (“the Judgment”) dismissing the 1^st applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Michael Wong (“the Judge”) dated 26 August 2025 refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review.  The 1^st applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dismissing his appeal from the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting his non-refoulement claim.

2.The facts and issues in the 1^st applicant’s appeal, as well as the reasons for dismissing it, were set out in the Judgment.  We will not repeat them here.

3.By a Notice of Motion filed on 12 May 2026, the 1^st applicant applied for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal by essentially repeating the grounds advanced in the Notice of Appeal filed on 4 September 2025.  In addition, the 1^st applicant argued that it would be very dangerous to relocate within Vietnam as it would be quite possible to be found by the creditors. 

4.In his supporting affirmation of the same date, the 1^st applicant stated that the Judge’s decision was reached unfairly without allowing him an opportunity to clarify his case and the situation in his country and that there is a good ground that was not necessarily considered in the leave for judicial review application.  No such ground was specified by the 1^st applicant in the affirmation. 

5.The 1^st applicant has failed to lodge any submissions for the present application in breach of the Directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals dated 12 May 2026.

6.Having considered the 1^st applicant’s Notice of Motion and affirmation in support, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on paper.  We have, therefore, determined the 1^st applicant’s application on the basis of the documents before the Court.

DISCUSSION

7.Under section 24 of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484, Laws of Hong Kong) (“the Ordinance”), an application for leave to appeal shall be made by motion, and notice of a motion for this purpose shall be filed within 28 days from the date of the judgment to be appealed from.  The 1^st applicant has delayed in filing the Notice of Motion by 6 days, and has not given any explanation for his delay.  Although the Court has power to extend the time for the applicant to file the Notice of Motion, such power should not be exercised unless the applicant can demonstrate that his intended appeal has a real prospect of success.

8.Section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance 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.

9.In the present application, the 1^st applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine.  Nor is any such question apparent to us from the matters which he has raised.

10.Further, the Notice of Motion has not identified any error in the Judgment.

11.We are therefore satisfied that the 1^st applicant’s intended appeal has no merits.  Neither do we see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance.

DISPOSITION

12.For the above reasons, the matters advanced by the 1^st applicant do not constitute valid grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. 

13.We refuse to extend time for the 1^st applicant to file the Notice of Motion.

14.The Notice of Motion filed on 12 May 2026 is therefore dismissed with no order as to costs.

The 1^st applicant, acting in person