RE TRAN VAN NHANH

CAMP 188/2021

[2022] HKCA 94

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 188 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2584 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon G Lam JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  The applicant is a Vietnamese national whose non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration and the Torture Claims Appeal Board/adjudicator of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office. His application for leave for judicial review of the Board’s decision was rejected by Deputy High Court Judge C P Pang,[1] and his application for extension of time to appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court on 11 November 2021.[2]

2.  The relevant facts and procedural history and the reasons for dismissing the appeal have been set out in our previous judgment and will not be repeated here.

3.  The applicant now seeks, by Notice of Motion dated 24 November 2021, leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the applicant stated:

“ 1. The learned Judges were wrong as a matter of law for not having applied the principles of irrationality to the decision made by the Director of Immigration refusing my application for Leave for Judicial Review and the Appeal; and

2.  The learned Judges were wrong as a matter of law for not having applied the principle of procedural unfairness to the decision of the Director.”

4.  Pursuant to the directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals under Practice Direction 2.1, this application will be dealt with on paper without an oral hearing.

5.  His written submissions of 6 December 2021 are largely identical to his prior submissions made in the application for extension of time to appeal to this Court.  We already addressed and rejected those arguments in our judgment of 11 November 2021.

6.  Having considered the materials available, we are not satisfied that there is any reasonable prospect of success in the intended appeal or any question involved which, by reason of its great general or public importance, ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision, as required by section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484).  Nor do we see any reason why the applicant should, for some other reason, be allowed to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

7.  The Notice of Motion is therefore dismissed.