NGUYEN VAN GIOI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CAMP 22/2025, [2025] HKCA 1080

On An Intended Appeal From [2024] HKCFI 1989 &

[2024] HKCFI 3280

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 22 OF 2025

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1647 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

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

1.  On 30 July 2024, Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung made an order refusing to grant to the Applicant leave to apply for judicial review. The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 18 April 2019, whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 23 February 2017 rejecting his non-refoulement claim.

2.  On 23 July 2025, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s application for an extension of time to appeal against the order of the Judge. The basic facts of this case and the Court’s reasons for dismissing the Applicant’s application have been set out in the CA Judgment and will not be repeated here.

3.  By a Notice of Motion dated 2 October 2025, the Applicant applied for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant stated that it was unsatisfactory that the Court of Appeal ruled that he had no chance of success in reviewing the Board’s decision, and repeated his allegation that he would be tortured, beaten or even killed by his creditors and gangsters if he were to return to Vietnam. In his affirmation filed on the same date, the Applicant basically repeated the points that he had previously made in support of his application for an extension of time to appeal.

4.  In his written submissions dated 20 October 2025, the Applicant repeats the factual basis of his non-refoulement claim, and sets out some general principles of law relating to the assessment of non-refoulement claims, but fails to explain how those principles are relevant or applicable to his case.

5.  Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, we determine the present application for leave to appeal on paper without an oral hearing.

6.  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.

7.  No question of great general or public importance involved in the intended appeal is identified in the Notice of Motion. We are unable to see any such question being involved in the intended appeal. The Applicant has not identified any error in the CA Judgment, or raised any viable ground of appeal against the CA Judgment. We are satisfied that the intended appeal has no reasonable prospect of success.

8.  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.

9.  Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is refused and the Notice of Motion is dismissed.