Doan Thi Thom v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 972/2025, [2026] HKCA 1841

On Appeal from [2025] HKCFI 4826

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 972 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2284 OF 2020)

________________________

BETWEEN

_____________________

_____________________

JUDGMENT

_____________________

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

THE APPLICATION

1.On 9 February 2026, this Court handed down a judgment ([2026] HKCA 33) (“the Judgment”) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung (“the Judge”) dated 22 October 2025 refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review.  The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dismissing her appeal from the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting her non-refoulement claim.

2.The facts and issues in the 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 11 May 2026, the 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 5 November 2025.  The applicant also argues that it would be very dangerous to relocate within Vietnam as it would be quite possible to be found by the creditors. 

4.In her supporting affirmation of the same date, the 1^st applicant stated that the Judge’s decision was reached unfairly without allowing her an opportunity to clarify her case and the situation in her country and that there is a good ground that was not necessarily considered in the leave for judicial review application.  However, she did not elaborate on what such ground is. 

5.In her written submissions lodged on 14 May 2026, she refers to various legal principles, argues that the Adjudicator acted in a procedurally unfair manner without properly assessing her credibility and repeats the argument, as stated in the Notice of Motion and the Notice of Appeal, that the Director did not consider her human rights.  

6.Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion, affirmation in support and written submissions, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on paper.  We have, therefore, determined the 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 applicant has delayed in filing the Notice of Motion by over two months, and has not given any explanation for her 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 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.Moreover, it is not permissible for the applicant to raise arguments for the first time in this application.  The application for leave to appeal to the CFA is not a platform for a litigant to conduct the application as if it is a fresh application for judicial review, raising new grounds for the first time: see Re Malugu Johani Emmanuel [2021] HKCA 1064, at [7].

12.We are therefore satisfied that the applicant’s application 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

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

14.We therefore refuse to extend time for the applicant to file the Notice of Motion.

15.The Notice of Motion filed on 11 May 2026 is dismissed with no order as to costs.

The applicant, acting in person