NGUYEN THI KHANH HOA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CAMP 325/2022, [2025] HKCA 478

On Appeal From [2021] HKCFI 3891

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 325 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1592 OF 2021)

____________

____________

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

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

1.  This is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”). The applicant’s 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 application for extension of time to appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court in our judgment dated 27 March 2024.

2.  By Notice of Motion filed on 17 April 2025, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA.  In that document the applicant stated that the Director of Immigration and the Board underestimated the harm she would suffer if she returned to Vietnam, that she would not receive assistance from the police or government authorities in Vietnam, that she could not avoid the harm by relocation to other cities in Vietnam, and that the court was wrong to hold that there was no error of law or procedural unfairness in the decisions of the Board and the Director of Immigration.  She explained that her application was late because she did not know there was a further avenue of appeal from this Court’s decision until she was advised by her friends.

3.  The applicant’s written submissions simply repeated the contents of her Notice of Motion.

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.  Further, the Notice of Motion was filed almost a year beyond the deadline of 28 days after our judgment, contrary to the requirement in section 24 of the Ordinance, and there is no valid excuse for the lengthy delay.

6.  Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.