NGUYEN THI VIET HA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 165/2025, [2026] HKCA 50

On Appeal from [2025] HKCA 880

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 165 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2618 OF 2024)

________________________

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

Hon Cheng J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”). The applicant is a Vietnamese national whose claim for non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong was rejected by the Director of Immigration and by the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”). Her application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision was dismissed by the Court of First Instance. Her appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court in our judgment dated 10 October 2025.

2.  By Notice of Motion filed on 22 October 2025, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA.  In that document, the applicant stated that she would be killed if refouled, that the Director’s suggestion of internal relocation was unfeasible, and that the Director did not consider her human rights. 

3.  The applicant lodged written submissions which were received by the court on 3 November 2025.  Those submissions merely stated the legal principles relating to the standards of fairness and Wednesbury unreasonableness, that the Board acted in a procedurally unfair manner as it did not properly assess the applicant’s credibility, and that the Director failed to consider her human rights.  No particulars were provided by the applicant. 

4.  There is no reason for us to depart from the usual practice of determining an application for leave to appeal on the basis of the available materials without an oral hearing, as set out in paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1.

5.  We take the view that this application ought to be dismissed because the applicant has not shown that the intended appeal raises any question which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the CFA for decision (which is the condition for giving leave to appeal under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484), and also because she has failed to show any prospects of success in the intended appeal.

6.  Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.