TRAN DUC MINH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 179/2025, [2026] HKCA 431

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 852

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 179 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2629 OF 2019)

____________

____________

_________________

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”). His application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision was dismissed by the Court of First Instance. His appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court in our judgment dated 15 September 2025.

2.  By Notice of Motion filed on 29 December 2025, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA. In that document, the applicant repeated that he would face risks of harm if he returned to Vietnam, asserted that it would not be feasible for him to relocate within Vietnam, and complained that the Immigration Department had disregarded his human rights.

3.  Despite having acknowledged the directions for written submissions to be lodged with the court, 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 for leave to appeal 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. Further, the Notice of Motion was filed long out of time.

5.  Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.