NGUYEN VAN TRUNG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 84/2023, [2024] HKCA 1032

On appeal from [2023] HKCFI 442

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 84 OF 2023

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 94 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

Hon Kwan Ag CJHC (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal handed down on 15 September 2023 ([2023] HKCA 1047). The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung dated 14 March 2023 refusing to grant leave for the applicant to bring judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) concerning his non‑refoulement claim.

2.  Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, the Registrar of Civil Appeals had directed that the applicant shall lodge written submissions on or before 5 October 2023. It was further directed that the notice of motion shall be determined on paper only without an oral hearing upon compliance with the said direction or the expiry of the time for complying with the direction. The applicant has not lodged any written submissions by the prescribed deadline. Having considered the papers of this case, we think it is appropriate to determine this application on paper.

Grounds of appeal

3.  The applicant stated the following grounds of appeal in his notice of motion filed on 21 September 2023:

(1)  It was unsatisfactory for the Court of Appeal to rule that the applicant has no chance of success in reviewing the decision of the Board;

(2)  If he returns to Vietnam, his life will be seriously threatened or he will probably be killed because the creditors and gangsters in Vietnam are different from those in Hong Kong. They disregard the law and are willing to kill;

(3)  The suggestion of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on internal relocation is completely unfeasible as the applicant will face many difficulties and obstacles;

(4)  With the nationwide social network of the gangsters and their clandestine connections with corrupt people in the government and police apparatus, it is quite possible for the creditor and gangsters to find out the applicant’s new residence;

(5)  The Director did not consider the human rights under the Basic Law or the “Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act”, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

Analysis and disposition

4.  Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484) 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.

5.  The applicant’s grounds in the present application are substantially the same as the ones he relied on in his last application, which were duly considered and rejected by the Court of Appeal in the judgment dated 15 September 2023 at §§14 to 17. The applicant failed to identify any particular mistakes in the Court of Appeal’s decision or any question of great general or public importance which ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for determination in accordance with section 22(1)(b). There is also no basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).

6.  For the above reasons, we refuse to grant leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and dismiss the Notice of Motion filed on 21 September 2023.