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

CACV 103/2021

[2022] HKCA 1362

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 103 OF 2021

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2342 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

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

1.  On 23 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 2 March 2021 refusing to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 22 October 2018.

2.  The Applicant now applies by Notice of Motion dated 9 August 2022 for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant stated that it was unsatisfactory that the Court of Appeal ruled in the CA Judgment that she had no chance of success in reviewing the decision of the Board. She repeated that she would be tortured, beaten, or even killed by her creditor and gangsters if she returned to Vietnam. She said that she could not return to live in another location in Vietnam for various reasons. Lastly, she claimed that the Immigration Department did not consider her human rights under various instruments, including the Basic Law and the ICCPR. She has failed, however, to point to any alleged error in the CA Judgment.

3.  There has been substantial delay in the present application, for which no explanation has been offered. The Applicant has also failed to file written submission in support of the application, contrary to the directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals dated 9 August 2022.

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 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.

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. 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.

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