|
CACV 1170/2025, [2026] HKCA 1251
On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 5783
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 1170 OF 2025
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1142 OF 2025)
________________________
BETWEEN
|
TRAN VAN DAN |
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
|
TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
|
Putative Respondent
|
|
and
|
|
|
DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
|
Putative Interested Party
|
________________________
| Before: |
Hon Chow JA and Lisa Wong J in Court |
| Date of Written Submissions: |
2 March 2026 |
| Date of Judgment: |
6 August 2026 |
________________________
J U D G M E N T
________________________
Hon Chow JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. On 2 December 2025, Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung made an
order refusing to grant to 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 9 May 2025,
whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 6
December 2024 rejecting his non-refoulement claim.
2. On 13 February 2026, this Court gave its judgment (“the
CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the 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 a Notice of Motion filed on 27 February 2026, the
Applicant applied for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of
Motion, the Applicant alleges that he will be tortured, beaten or even killed by the creditors and gangsters in
Vietnam, who are cruel and violent. He disagrees with the Director that he can relocate to another part of
his home country, and says that the creditors and gangsters can find out his new residence. He also
complains that the Immigration Department did not consider his human rights.
4. In his written submissions dated 2 March 2026 filed in
support of the application, the Applicant repeats the factual background of his case, and states some general
propositions of law concerning the assessment and determination of non-refoulement claims without explaining how
they are relevant or applicable to his case.
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 raised any viable ground of appeal against the
CA Judgment. We are satisfied that the intended appeal has 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.
(Anderson Chow)
Justice of Appeal |
(Lisa Wong)
Judge of the Court of First Instance |
The Applicant, acting in person
|