RE VU THI HANG

CAMP 260/2022, [2024] HKCA 1041

On appeal from [2021] HKCFI 1816

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 260 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 276 OF 2021)

__________________________

__________________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

Hon Kwan Ag CJHC (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is the applicant’s notice of motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal handed down on 15 September 2023 ([2023] HKCA 1046). The Court of Appeal declined to grant extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan dated 23 June 2021 refusing to grant extension of time for the applicant to seek leave to bring judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board concerning the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

2.  Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, the Registrar of Civil Appeals had directed that the notice of motion shall be determined on paper without an oral hearing. The applicant lodged her written submissions on 3 October 2023. Having considered her written submissions and the papers, we think it is appropriate to determine this application on paper.

Grounds of appeal

3.  The applicant stated the following as her grounds in the notice of motion filed on 18 September 2023:

“I would like to infomr [sic] the Honourable Court that there is some error in law in my decision. Decision maker just relied on COL [sic] Information and my previous facts which were in favor while rejecting my claim. Acual [sic] life occur different situation then what is mentioned in COL [sic] Information. The Officer and cours [sic] prefers to ignore the overwheming [sic] of the evidence of this violence towards minorities searching for unrealistic silver lining. The Decision is betrary [sic] a bias and formula approach unlikely fairly access the danger of my life and clearly not reasonable.”

4.  Her written submissions may be summarised as follows:

(1)  High standards of fairness are required in the determination of a torture claim on the part of the decision maker;

(2)  The Board acted in a procedurally unfair manner without properly assessing her credibility.

Analysis and disposition

5.  Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484) 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.  The applicant’s grounds and submissions in the present application are just bare assertions without particulars and evidence in support. She has not identified any particular mistakes in the judgment of the Court of Appeal, nor has she raised any question of great general or public importance which ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for determination in accordance with section 22(1)(b). There is also no basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).

7.  We therefore refuse to grant leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and dismiss the Notice of Motion filed on 18 September 2023.