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

CAMP 147/2023, [2023] HKCA 1086

On An Intended Appeal From [2023] HKCFI 182 &

[2023] HKCFI 527

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 147 OF 2023

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 30 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Chow JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  On 19 January 2023, Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung made an order refusing to grant 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 31 December 2018, whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 7 June 2018 rejecting the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

2.  On 2 March 2023, the Judge refused to grant the Applicant an extension of time to appeal against the Judge’s order of 19 January 2023.

3.  On 3 August 2023, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”)  dismissing the Applicant’s application for leave to appeal out of time against the Judge’s order of 2 March 2023.  The basic facts of this case and the Court’s reasons for dismissing the Applicant’s application have been set out in the CA Judgment and will not be repeated here.

4.  By Notice of Motion dated 7 August 2023, the Applicant applies for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant repeats the factual basis of her non-refoulement claim.

5.  The Applicant has failed to lodge written submissions in support of her application for leave to appeal contrary to the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 7 August 2023.

6.  Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, we determine the present application for leave to appeal on paper without an oral hearing.

7.  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.

8.  No question of great general or public importance involved in the proposed appeal is identified in the Notice of Motion.  We are unable to see any such question being involved in the proposed appeal.  The Applicant has not identified any error in the CA Judgment, or raised any viable ground of appeal against the CA Judgment.  We are satisfied that the intended appeal has no merits and no reasonable prospect of success.

9.  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.

10.  Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is refused and the Notice of Motion is dismissed.

11.  This judgment is written in English because the decisions below were in English.  If required, the Applicant may arrange with the clerk to this Court for an oral interpretation of the judgment by a Vietnamese interpreter at a mutually convenient time in the Court’s premises.