NGUYEN QUOC CUONG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CAMP 326/2022, [2023] HKCA 695

On An Intended Appeal From [2021] HKCFI 3089 &

[2022] HKCFI 2175

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 326 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 631 OF 2021)

________________________

________________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

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

1.  On 21 December 2022, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s application for leave to appeal out of time against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan dated 26 July 2022 refusing to grant the Applicant an extension of time to appeal against the Judge’s earlier order of 22 October 2021 refusing to grant him leave to apply for judicial review.

2.  The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 6 September 2019, whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 25 May 2018 rejecting the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

3.  By Notice of Motion dated 4 April 2023, the Applicant applies for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant repeated the factual basis of his non-refoulement claim, stated that he could not relocate to live in another part of Vietnam for various reasons, and alleged that his human rights were not considered by the Immigration Department. He failed to identify any error in the CA Judgment, or any proper ground of appeal against the CA Judgment.

4.  In his affirmation filed on 4 April 2023, the Applicant alleged that the decision of the High Court was reached unfairly without allowing him an opportunity to clarify his case and the situation in his country. This ground was dealt with at §19 of the CA Judgment.

5.  The Applicant has failed to lodge with the court written submissions in support of his application contrary to the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 4 April 2023.

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 proposed appeal is identified in the Notice of Motion. We are unable to see any such question being involved in the proposed appeal. We are satisfied that the intended appeal has no merits and no reasonable prospect of success. 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.

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