PHAM THI HAU v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CACV 166/2022

[2022] HKCA 1419

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 166 OF 2022

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 417 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

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

1.  On 3 August 2022, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan dated 21 April 2022 refusing to grant her leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dated 11 February 2019, whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 18 July 2018.

2.  The Applicant now applies by Notice of Motion dated 22 August 2022 for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant states, inter alia, that:

(1)  It was unsatisfactory that the Court of Appeal ruled that she had no chance of success in reviewing the Board’s decision.

(2)  The Director’s suggestion that she could move to live in another location in Vietnam was completely unfeasible for various reasons.

(3)  The Immigration Department did not consider her human rights under various instruments, including the Basic Law and the ICCPR.

3.  The Applicant has failed to file written submissions in support of her application, contrary to the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 22 August 2022.

4.  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.

5.  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.

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