RE NGUYEN THI BINH

CAMP 539/2021

[2022] HKCA 1208

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 539 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 948 OF 2018)

____________

____________

_________________

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 is a Vietnamese national whose claim for non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong was rejected by the Director of Immigration and by the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”). Her application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision was dismissed by the Court of First Instance.[1] She was late in taking steps to appeal and her application for extension of time to appeal against that decision was dismissed both by the court below, and by this Court in our judgment dated 7 June 2022.[2]

2.  By Notice of Motion filed on 21 June 2022, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA. In that document the applicant stated that if she returned to Vietnam, her life would be seriously threatened, and she would probably die, because the creditors in gangsters in Vietnam are cruel and violent, disregard the law, and are willing to kill people to satisfy their anger. She said she is not an active person and her health is not good, that it is “completely unfeasible” for her to relocate to another place in Vietnam, and that it is quite possible for the gangsters with their nationwide network to find out her new residence. She complained that the Immigration Department paid no regard to her human rights, and asked for permission to appeal to the CFA.

3.  Despite having acknowledged the directions for written submissions to be lodged with the court by 5 July 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 she has failed to show any prospects of success in the intended appeal.

5.  Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.