VU KIM YEN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CACV 295/2025, [2026] HKCA 903

On Appeal from [2025] HKCFI 1909

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 295 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1847 OF 2019)

________________________

_____________________

________________________

JUDGMENT

________________________

Hon H. Au-Yeung J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

THE APPLICATION

1.  On 19 November 2025, this Court (Chow JA and H. Au-Yeung J) handed down a judgment ([2025] HKCA 979) (“the Judgment”) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan dated 9 May 2025 refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review.  The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dismissing her appeal from the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting her non-refoulement claim.

2.  By a Notice of Motion filed on 28 November 2025, the applicant applied for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal by essentially repeating the grounds of appeal set out in the Notice of Appeal filed on 15 May 2025.

3.  In her written submissions lodged on 12 December 2025, she repeats the factual basis and procedural history of her claim for non-refoulement protection, and she refers to various legal principles without explaining in what ways those principles are engaged in the present application.

4.  Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion and written submissions, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on the papers.  We have, therefore, determined the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents filed.

DISCUSSION

5.  Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484, Laws of Hong Kong) (“the Ordinance”) provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, from any judgment of the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter, whether final or interlocutory, 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.

6.  In the present application, the applicant has simply failed to identify any question of great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine.  Nor is any such question apparent to us from the matters which she has raised.

7.  Further, the Notice of Motion has not identified any supposed error in the Judgment. 

8.  Neither do we see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance.

DISPOSITION

9.  For the above reasons, the matters advanced by the applicant do not constitute valid grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. 

10.  The Notice of Motion filed on 28 November 2025 is therefore dismissed.