RE NGUYEN THI GIANG

CAMP 328/2021

[2022] HKCA 905

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 328 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1292 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. She did not appeal in time and her application for extension of time to appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court in our judgment dated 27 January 2022.[1]

2.  Long after the 28-day period prescribed by section 24(2) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484), on 10 May 2022 the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to seek leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA. She stated in the Notice of Motion that if she returned to Vietnam, her life would be seriously threatened because the creditors and gangsters in Vietnam were cruel and violent. She asserted that it was infeasible for her to move to a new location in Vietnam, as her health was not good and she was near retirement age, and that it was quite possible for the creditors and gangsters to find her. On the same date the applicant filed an affirmation in which she stated that the decision of the High Court had been reached unfairly without allowing her an opportunity to clarify her case and the situation in her country, and that there was a good ground of appeal that had not necessarily been considered at the stage of applying for leave for judicial review.

3.  The written submissions lodged by the applicant on 18 May 2022 largely repeated what she had stated in the Notice of Motion.

4.  Having considered the papers, we consider it appropriate, in accordance with the usual practice, to determine this application on the basis of the available materials without an oral hearing.

5.  We take the view that this application ought to be dismissed not only because of the unexplained delay, but also 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 Ordinance), and in addition because the applicant has failed to show any prospects of success in the intended appeal.

6.  Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.