MANH THI MAI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 152 /2024, [2025] HKCA 1142

On appeal from [2024] HKCFI 878

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 152 OF 2024

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1296 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Kwan VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is the applicant’s Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal handed down on 20 November 2024 ([2024] HKCA 1076). The Court of Appeal rejected the appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung dated 11 April 2024 refusing to grant leave for the applicant to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board concerning her 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 15 April 2025.  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 and proceed to do so.

Grounds of appeal

3.  The applicant stated her grounds of appeal in the Notice of Motion which may be summarised as follows:

(1)     If she returns to Vietnam, her life will be seriously threatened or she 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 people;

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

(3)     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;

(4)     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.

4.  These grounds are substantially the same as those she raised in her Notice of Appeal.

5.  In her affirmation filed on 1 April 2025, she further contended that the decision made by the Court of Appeal has been reached unfairly without allowing her an opportunity to clarify her case and situation in her country.

Analysis and disposition

6.  Under section 24(2) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484) (“the Ordinance”), application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal shall be filed within 28 days from the date of the judgment to be appealed from.  Good grounds have to be shown by the applicant for the court to grant an extension of time pursuant to section 24(5) of the Ordinance (Re Rajaram Razeena [2019] HKCA 959 at §1.4).

7.  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.

8.  The applicant was late for more than three months in filing the Notice of Motion.  The delay is substantial and she did not provide any explanation for her delay.  There is no good ground for this court to grant extension of time for her to file the Notice of Motion.

9.  In any event, the applicant’s grounds of appeal are devoid of merits.  In particular, her contention that the Court of Appeal has reached its decision unfairly without allowing her an opportunity to clarify her case is without basis.  The applicant had submitted a written consent for the appeal to be disposed of on paper without an oral hearing.  She was directed to lodge written submissions but she failed to do so.  The rest of her grounds are not supported by sufficient particulars or evidence.  She did not identify any particular mistakes in our decision, nor did she identify 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).

10.  For the above reasons, we dismiss the Notice of Motion filed on 1 April 2025.