|
CACV 356/2023, [2024] HKCA 793
On Appeal From [2023] HKCFI 2633
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 356 OF 2023
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1228 OF 2019)
____________
| BETWEEN |
|
|
| |
TRAN VAN NAM |
Applicant |
|
and
|
| |
TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/
NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE |
Putative
Respondent |
|
and
|
| |
DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION |
Putative
Interested Party |
____________
| Before: |
Hon Au and G Lam JJA in Court |
| Date of Judgment: |
30 August 2024 |
_________________
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 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”). His application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision was dismissed by the Court of First Instance. His appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court in our judgment dated 28 June 2024.
2. By Notice of Motion filed on 5 July 2024, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA. In that document the applicant repeated the allegations about the risks he would face upon repatriation, stated that it would not be feasible for him to relocate to another place in Vietnam, and asserted that the Immigration Department disregarded his human rights.
3. Despite having acknowledged the directions for written submissions to be lodged with the court the applicant has not to date lodged any submissions for the present application.
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 he has failed to show any prospects of success in the intended appeal.
6. Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.
(Thomas Au)
Justice of Appeal |
(Godfrey Lam)
Justice of Appeal |
The Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person
|