DO VAN HUNG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 271/2024, [2025] HKCA 147

On Appeal From [2024] HKCFI 1549

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 271 OF 2024

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1712 OF 2019)

________________________

_____________________

____________________

JUDGMENT

____________________

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

1.  On 25 June 2024, Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung made an order (“the 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 17 June 2019, whereby the Board dismissed the Applicants’ appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 21 December 2017 rejecting his non-refoulement claim.

2.  On 25 October 2024, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the said 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 Notice of Motion dated 10 January 2025, 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 grounds previously set out in his Notice of Appeal dated 9 July 2024, the contents of which have been summarised at §7 of the CA Judgment.  This Court considered those grounds and came to the view that they could not constitute any valid or viable grounds of appeal against the Order.

4.  In his affirmation filed in support of the present application, the Applicant complains that the decision made by the Court of Appeal was reached unfairly without giving him an opportunity to clarify his case and the situation in his country.  This complaint has plainly no substance in view of the fact that (i) on 9 July 2024, he gave his consent to his appeal being disposed of on paper without an oral hearing, and (ii) he failed to lodge written submissions in support of his appeal contrary to the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 9 July 2024, and was thus deemed to have abandoned his right to rely on any written submissions.  The Applicant also states in his affirmation that he understands that there is a good ground of appeal that was not necessarily considered at the stage of applying for leave to apply for judicial review.  However, the Applicant fails to identify or further amplify this alleged ground of appeal.

5.  The Applicant has not filed any written submissions in support of the present application, contrary to the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals dated 10 January 2025.

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 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 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.