VU VAN MINH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CAMP 20/2023, [2024] HKCA 124

On appeal from [2022] HKCFI 3172

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 20 OF 2023

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2514 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

Hon Kwan VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is the applicant’s notice of motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal handed down on 15 June 2023 ([2023] HKCA 745). The Court of Appeal refused to grant extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung dated 13 October 2022 dismissing the application for leave to seek judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board concerning the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

2.  Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, the Registrar of Civil Appeals had directed that the applicant shall lodge written submissions on or before 3 July 2023. It was further directed that the notice of motion shall be determined on paper only without an oral hearing upon compliance with the said direction or the expiry of the time for complying with the direction. The applicant did not lodge any written submissions by the prescribed deadline. Having considered the papers of this case, we think it is appropriate to determine this application on paper and proceed to do so.

3.  The applicant is a national of Vietnam. He alleged that he entered Hong Kong illegally on 24 April 2015. He surrendered to the Immigration Department on 27 April 2015 and raised a non-refoulement claim on the same day. His claim was made on the basis that he would be harmed or killed by his creditor if he returns to Vietnam because he fails to repay the debt.

4.  The applicant stated his grounds of appeal in the notice of motion filed on 19 June 2023 which may be summarised as follows:

(1)  It was unsatisfactory for the Court of Appeal to rule that the applicant had no chance of success in reviewing the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board and the Director of Immigration.

(2)  If the applicant returns to Vietnam, his life would be seriously threatened because the gangsters in Vietnam are different from those in Hong Kong, most of them are cruel and violent. They disregard the law and are willing to kill people.

(3)  It is completely unfeasible for the applicant to relocate to another place in Vietnam as there will be many difficulties and obstacles. The nationwide social network of the gangsters and their clandestine connections with corrupt people in the government and police apparatus make it possible for the creditor and gangsters to find out the applicant’s new residence.

(4)  The Director of Immigration did not consider the human rights under the Basic Law or the “Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act”, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

Analysis and disposition

5.  Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, from any judgment of the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter, whether final or interlocutory, 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.  There are no particulars or evidence to support the applicant’s grounds in this application. He has not identified any mistakes in the judgment of the Court of Appeal nor has he raised any question of great general or public importance which ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for determination in accordance with section 22(1)(b). There is also no basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).

7.  For the above reasons, we refuse to grant leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and dismiss the notice of motion filed on 19 June 2023.