DINH CHINH BO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 550/2021

[2022] HKCA 1711

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 550 OF 2021

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1248 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

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 (Kwan VP and S T Poon J) handed down on 27 May 2022 ([2022] HKCA 741). The Court of Appeal rejected his appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung dated 24 November 2021 ([2021] HKCFI 3523) refusing to grant leave for the applicant to apply for judicial review concerning his non-refoulement claim.

2.  Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, the Registrar of Civil Appeals had directed on 9 June 2022 that the applicant shall lodge written submissions on or before 23 June 2022. It was further directed that the present 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 did not lodge 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.

3.  The applicant is a national of Vietnam. He last entered Hong Kong illegally on 21 December 2013 and was arrested by the police on 24 December 2013. He lodged a non-refoulement claim on 29 December 2013 on the basis that he would be harmed or killed by his creditor. His claim was assessed on all applicable grounds under the unified screening mechanism.

Grounds of appeal

4.  In the Notice of Motion filed on 9 June 2022, the applicant stated the following grounds of appeal:

(1)  If the applicant returns to Vietnam, his life will be seriously threatened because the creditors and gangsters in Vietnam are different from those in Hong Kong, most of them are cruel and violent. They disregard the law and are willing to kill people.

(2)  The Director of Immigration (“the Director”) suggested that the applicant could to relocate to another place but it is completely unfeasible and it is possible for the creditor and gangster to find out the applicant’s new residence;

(3)  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

5.  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.

6.  In the present application, the applicant failed to demonstrate that the Court of Appeal was wrong in dismissing his appeal. Besides, he failed to 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).

7.  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 9 June 2022.