TRAN VAN NGOC v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CAMP 164/2023, [2023] HKCA 1140

On Appeal From [2023] HKCA 822

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 164 OF 2023

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2090 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’s 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”). His application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision was dismissed by the Court of First Instance. His application for extension of time to appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court in our judgment dated 11 July 2023.

2.  By Notice of Motion filed on 10 August 2023, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA. In that document the applicant stated that if he returns to Vietnam, his life will be seriously threatened because the creditor and gangsters in Vietnam are cruel and violent and are willing to kill people. He stated that it is not feasible for him to live in a new location in Vietnam, and that it is quite possible for the creditor and his youngsters to find him given their network and connections. He stated that the Immigration Department did not consider his human rights.

3.  The applicant did not lodge any written submissions as directed by the Registrar of Civil Appeals.

4.  There is no reason for us to depart from the usual practice of determining an application for leave to appeal on the basis of the available materials without an oral hearing, as set out in paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1.

5.  We take the view that this application ought to be dismissed 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 Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484), and also because he has failed to show any prospects of success in the intended appeal.

6.  Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.