PHAM THI HUE v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CAMP 49/2024, [2026] HKCA 350

On An Intended Appeal From [2024] HKCFI 411

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 49 OF 2024

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1467 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

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

1.  On 7 February 2024, Fung J made an order refusing to grant to 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 24 May 2019, whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 25 January 2017 rejecting her non-refoulement claim.

2.  On 2 August 2024, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s application for an extension of time to appeal against the 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 a Notice of Motion dated 12 January 2026, the Applicant applied for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant complained generally about errors of law, failure to apply the principle of procedural fairness and the principle of rationality, error in placing excessive reliance on COI, failure to give proper weight to substantial evidence of violence and persecution against minorities, and failure to apply relevant legal principles.

4.  The Applicant has failed to lodge any written submissions in support of her application, contrary to the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 13 January 2026.

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.  There has been very substantial delay in this application. The Applicant’s purported explanations for the delay contained in her affirmation filed on 13 January 2026 (viz, lack of legal knowledge, language difficulties, limited access to assistance, and her arrest and detention by the Immigration Department since 11 November 2025) are all feeble excuses, and are rejected.

8.  The matters raised by the Applicant in the Notice of Motion are all general allegations without particulars. They appeared to have been copied by the Applicant from some unknown source(s) without regard to the fact that some of the allegations are completely irrelevant to her case, eg the allegation concerning violence or persecution against minorities has no bearing to the Applicant’s claim for non-refoulement protection, which was advanced on the basis of an alleged risk of harm by a creditor to whom the Applicant was indebted.

9.  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 reasonable prospect of success.

10.  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.

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