RE PHAN THE CUONG

CAMP 290/2022

[2022] HKCA 1785

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 290 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 684 OF 2021)

____________

____________

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

Hon G Lam JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”). The applicant’s claim for non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong was rejected by the Director of Immigration, and the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) directed that the applicant’s appeal therefrom was withdrawn at his own request. The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision was dismissed by the Court of First Instance. His application for extension of time to appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court in our judgment dated 10 October 2022.[1]

2.  By Notice of Motion filed on 20 October 2022, the applicant seeks leave to appeal to the CFA. In that document, the applicant stated that if he returned to Vietnam, his life would be seriously threatened, because the creditors and gangsters in Vietnam are different from those in Hong Kong and are mostly cruel and violent and willing to kill people. He stated that relocation to another place in Vietnam is not feasible because his health is not good and he will be disadvantaged in the labour market and that, with a nationwide network, his creditor and the gangsters would be able to find out his new residence. He also said that the Immigration Department did not consider his human rights.

3.  Despite having acknowledged the directions for written submissions to be lodged with the court by 3 November 2022, the applicant has not to date lodged any submissions for the present application. There is no reason for us to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on the basis of the available materials without an oral hearing, as set out in paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1.

4.  We take the view that this application ought to be dismissed because the applicant has not shown that the intended appeal raises any question which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the CFA for decision (which is the condition for giving leave to appeal under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484), and also because he has failed to show any prospects of success in the intended appeal.

5.  Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.