NGUYEN VAN SON v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CAMP 383/2022, [2023] HKCA 685

On An Intended Appeal From [2021] HKCFI 3633 &

[2022] HKCFI 2276

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 383 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1342 OF 2021)

________________________

________________________

______________

J U D G M E N T

______________

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

1.  On 20 March 2023, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s application for leave to appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan dated 2 August 2022 refusing to grant an extension of time to the Applicant to appeal against the Judge’s earlier order dated 2 December 2021 refusing to grant him leave to apply for judicial review.

2.  The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 2 September 2021, whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 23 June 2021 rejecting the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

3.  By Notice of Motion dated 13 April 2023, the Applicant applies for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notion of Motion, the Applicant stated, inter alia, that (i) it was unsatisfactory that the Court of Appeal ruled that he had no chance of success in reviewing the Board’s decision and the Director’s decision, (ii) if he returned to Vietnam, his life would be seriously threatened and he would probably die, (iii) he could not relocate to live in another part of Vietnam for various reasons, and (iv) the Immigration Department did not consider his human rights under the Basic Law, the Hong Kong Bill of Rights or the ICCPR. These are all bare and general allegations.

4.  The Applicant has failed to lodge with the court written submissions in support of his application contrary to the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 13 April 2023.

5.  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.

6.  No question of great general or public importance involved in the proposed appeal is identified in the Notice of Motion. We are unable to see any such question being involved in the proposed appeal. We are satisfied that the intended appeal has no merits and no reasonable prospect of success. 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.

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