HOANG VAN NANG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 47/2024, [2024] HKCA 731

On Appeal From [2024] HKCFI 329

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 47 OF 2024

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1319 OF 2019)

________________________

_____________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

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

1.  On 7 February 2024, Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung 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 May 2019, whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 28 August 2017 rejecting his non-refoulement claim.

2.  On 10 May 2024, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the said order of the Judge. The basic facts of this case and the Court’s reasons for dismissing the Applicant’s appeal have been set out in the CA Judgment and will not be repeated here.

3.  By Notice of Motion dated 20 June 2024, the Applicant applies for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant repeats his claim that his life will be seriously threatened, and he will probably die if he returns to Vietnam, because most creditors and gangsters in Vietnam are cruel and violent, and they disregard the law and are willing to kill people to satisfy their anger and ferocity. He disagrees with the Director’s assessment that he can move to another location in Vietnam to avoid his creditor for various reasons, and alleges that the Immigration Department failed to consider his human rights under various instruments including the Basic Law and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In his supporting affirmation filed on the same date, the Applicant states that the CA Judgment was reached unfairly without giving him an opportunity to clarify his case and the situation in his country (notwithstanding the fact that on 8 February 2024, he consented to his appeal being disposed of on paper without an oral hearing), and says that “there is a good ground of appeal that was not necessarily considered at the stage of applying for leave for judicial review” (but he has failed to identify what that ground may be).

4.  The Applicant has not filed any written submissions in support of his application, contrary to the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals dated 20 June 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.