DINH THI VAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 105/2021

[2022] HKCA 17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 105 OF 2021

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1205 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

____________________

JUDGMENT

____________________

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

1.  On 8 November 2021, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge C P Pang dated 11 March 2021 refusing to grant her leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office / Torture Claims Appeal Board.

2.  The Applicant now applies by Notice of Motion dated 24 November 2021 for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant states that it was unsatisfactory that the Court of Appeal ruled that she had no chance of success in reviewing the Board’s decision, and repeats her claim for non-refoulement protection. She also alleges that the Immigration Department did not consider her human rights under “the Basic Law / Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act[1] / International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights / International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights”.

3.  In her written submissions dated 29 November 2021, the Applicant again repeats her claim for non-refoulement protection, and sets out some general principles of public law relating to non-refoulement claims.

4.  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, inter alia, the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal 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.

5.  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. There is also no basis to grant leave to appeal on the “otherwise” limb in s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance.

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

[1] It is not clear what instrument the Applicant is referring to here.