RE DONG VAN AN

CAMP 538/2021

[2023] HKCA 325

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 538 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1003 OF 2018)

____________

____________

_________________

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”). His application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision was dismissed by the Court of First Instance. His application for extension of time to appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court in our judgment dated 29 December 2022.

2.  By Notice of Motion filed on 31 January 2023, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA. In that document the applicant states that if he returns to Vietnam, his life will be seriously threatened, because creditors and gangsters in Vietnam are cruel and violent and willing to kill people to satisfy their anger and ferocity. The applicant states that it is not feasible for him to relocate within Vietnam as his health is not good, he is not an active person, and there is no guarantee he can adapt to the new place and find a job. Also, with their nationwide network and clandestine connections with corrupt people in the government, it would be quite possible for the creditor and gangsters to find out the applicant’s new residence. The applicant also complains that the Immigration Department did not consider his human rights.

3.  In his written submissions, the applicant has merely repeated the background of his non-refoulement claim, and cited principles from certain decided cases without identifying how they are relevant to his application for leave to appeal.

4.  There is no reason for us to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind 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 he has failed to show any prospects of success in the intended appeal. In addition, the application for leave to appeal was filed outside the prescribed 28-day period laid down in section 24 of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance. The applicant has failed to provide any explanation for the delay.

6.  Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.