PHAM TIEN DUNG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CAMP 545/2022, [2023] HKCA 723

On Appeal From [2023] HKCA 411

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 545 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1503 OF 2021)

____________

____________

_________________

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 28 March 2023.

2.  By Notice of Motion filed on 28 April 2023, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA. In that document the applicant reiterated that he would face danger if he returned to Vietnam and asserted that it was not feasible for him to relocate to another place within his country. He claimed that the Immigration Department did not consider his human rights.

3.  Despite having acknowledged receipt of the directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals for written submissions to be lodged by 12 May 2023, the applicant has not provided any written submissions in support of his application. There is no reason for us to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on the basis of the available materials without an oral hearing, as set out in paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1.

4.  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. Further, the Notice of Motion was filed more than 28 days after our judgment, contrary to the requirement in section 24 of the Ordinance, and the delay has not been explained.

5.  Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.