RE NGUYEN THI NGA

CACV 382/2022, [2024] HKCA 1171

On appeal from [2022] HKCFI 2772

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 382 OF 2022

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 701 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.  On 29 March 2023, this court (Cheung JA and Barma JA)  handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung given on 7 September 2022 refusing to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dismissing her appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting her non-refoulement claim.

2.  The facts and issues in the applicant’s appeal, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment.[1]  We will not repeat them here.  

3.  The applicant subsequently applied, by a Notice of Motion filed on 4 April 2023, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the applicant stated that her life would be “seriously threatened” if she returned to Vietnam, and that she would most likely be arrested by the Vietnamese police.  She further contended (without elaboration)  that the Immigration Department “did not consider [her] human rights under the Basic Law / Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act / International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights / International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights”.

4.  In breach of the directions made by the Registrar of Civil Appeals, the applicant failed to lodge any written submissions with the court.  She is therefore debarred from lodging and relying on the same.

5.  Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on the papers.  We have, therefore, determined the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents filed.

6.  The matters stated by the applicant do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine, as required by section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484.  Nor is any such question apparent to us from the matters she has raised.

7.  The Notice of Motion fails to identify any supposed error in our judgment and the matters stated therein raise no ground that is reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.

8.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

9.  For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 4 April 2023 is dismissed.