PHAM THI LIEN AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CAMP 79/2024, [2024] HKCA 1188

On an Intended Appeal From [2024] HKCFI 366 &

[2024] HKCFI 835

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 79 OF 2024

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1088 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

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

1.  On 1 February 2024, Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan made an order refusing to grant to the Applicants leave to apply for judicial review. The intended judicial review was against the decisions of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 16 April 2019 and 19 December 2019, whereby the Board dismissed the Applicants’ appeals against the decisions of the Director of Immigration dated 29 December 2016 and 16 January 2019 respectively rejecting their non-refoulement claims.

2.  On 31 October 2024, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicants’ application for an extension of time to appeal against the said order of the Judge. The basic facts of this case and the Court’s reasons for dismissing the Applicants’ application have been set out in the CA Judgment and will not be repeated here.

3.  By Notice of Motion filed on 14 November 2024, the Applicants apply for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the Applicants state that if they return to Vietnam, they will be beaten, tortured or even killed because creditors and gangsters in Vietnam are cruel and violent, and they disregard the law and are willing to kill people to satisfy their anger and ferocity. They say that they cannot relocate in Vietnam for various reasons. They further allege that the Immigration Department did not consider their human rights under, inter alia, the Basic Law and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

4.  The Applicants have not filed any written submissions in support of the application contrary to the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals dated 14 November 2024.

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 Applicants’ allegations are bare, general assertions without particulars. They have 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.

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.

10.  For the avoidance of doubt, the non-compliance with Order 80, Rule 2 in these proceedings is treated as a mere irregularity without rendering the 2^nd Applicant’s application a nullity.