BUI THI PHAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 260/2022

[2023] HKCA 230

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 260 OF 2022

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 494 OF 2019)

________________________

_____________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.  On 3 October 2022, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung dated 23 June 2022 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 14 February 2019, whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 28 June 2018 rejecting her non-refoulement claim.

2.  By Notice of Motion dated 18 January 2023, the Applicant applies for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant states, inter alia, that it was unsatisfactory that the Court of Appeal ruled that she had no chance of success in reviewing the decision of the Board, that she will be tortured, beaten or even killed by gangsters if she were to return to Vietnam, that it was completely infeasible for her to live in another location in Vietnam, and that the Immigration Department did not consider her human rights.

3.  The Applicant has not filed any written submissions in accordance with the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 18 January 2023.

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.