LUU THI NAM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CAMP 237/2023, [2025] HKCA 361

On Appeal From [2020] HKCFI 1280

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 237 OF 2023

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1766 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”). Her application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision was dismissed by the Court of First Instance. Her application for extension of time to appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court in our judgment dated 25 July 2024.

2.  By Notice of Motion filed on 11 March 2025, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA.  In that document the applicant stated that her life would be in danger if she returned to Vietnam and that the Immigration Department of Hong Kong had ignored her human rights.

3.  The applicant did not lodge any written submissions for the present application.

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 she has failed to show any prospects of success in the intended appeal.  Further, the Notice of Motion was filed long after 28 days had expired after our judgment, contrary to the requirement in section 24 of the Ordinance, and the delay has not been explained.

6.  Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.