DO NGOC THANH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CAMP 204/2023, [2024] HKCA 504

On An Intended Appeal From [2022] HKCFI 1354 &

[2022] HKCFI 2742

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 204 OF 2023

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 73 OF 2022)

________________________

________________________

_____________________

J U D G M E N T

_____________________

Hon Chow JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  On 12 May 2022, Deputy High Court Judge To made an order refusing to grant the Applicant leave to apply for judicial review. The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 10 January 2022, whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 12 October 2021 rejecting his non-refoulement claim.

2.  On 9 April 2024, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s application for an extension of time to appeal against the said order of the Judge. The basic facts of this case and the Court’s reasons for dismissing the Applicant’s application have been set out in the CA Judgment and will not be repeated here.

3.  By Notice of Motion dated 22 April 2024, the Applicant applies for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant states that it was unsatisfactory that the Court of Appeal ruled that he had no chance of success in reviewing the decisions of the Board and the Director. He repeats that his life will be seriously threatened, and he will probably die, if he returns to Vietnam, because the creditors and gangsters in Vietnam are cruel and violent, and they disregard the law and are will to kill people to satisfy their anger and ferocity. The Applicant disagrees with the Director’s assessment he can move to live in a new location in Vietnam to avoid his creditor for various reasons. He also alleges that the Immigration Department failed to consider his human rights under, inter alia, the Basic Law and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

4.  The Applicant has failed to lodge written submissions in support of his application, contrary to the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals dated 22 April 2024.

5.  Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, we determine the present application for leave to appeal on paper without an oral hearing.

6.  Under s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484, an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal in any civil cause or matter 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.

7.  No question of great general or public importance involved in the intended appeal is identified in the Notice of Motion. We are unable to see any such question being involved in the intended appeal. The Applicant has not identified any error in the CA Judgment, or raised any viable ground of appeal against the CA Judgment. We are satisfied that the intended appeal has no merits and no reasonable prospect of success.

8.  There is also no basis to grant leave to appeal on the “or otherwise” limb in s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance.

9.  Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is refused and the Notice of Motion is dismissed.