NGUYEN THI HONG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CAMP 163/2024, [2025] HKCA 358

On An Intended Appeal From [2024] HKCFI 1456 &

[2024] HKCFI 2043

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 163 OF 2024

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1582 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

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

1.  On 4 June 2024, Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan made an order refusing to grant to the Applicant leave to apply for judicial review. The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 5 June 2019, whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 8 February 2017 rejecting her non-refoulement claim.

2.  On 26 February 2025, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s application for an extension of time to appeal against the said order of the Judge. The basic facts of this case and the Court’s reasons for dismissing the Applicant’s application have been set out in the CA Judgment and will not be repeated here.

3.  By Notice of Motion dated 6 March 2025, the Applicant applies for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion and her supporting affirmation, the Applicant repeats her claimed fear of returning to Vietnam, and the factual basis of her non-refoulement claim. She alleges that the Judges were wrong as a matter of law for not having applied the principle of irrationality, and/or the principle of procedural unfairness. She also asserts that she understands that there is a good ground of appeal that was not necessarily considered at the stage of applying for leave for judicial review, but fails to explain what that ground may be.

4.  In her written submissions dated 19 March 2025, the Applicant repeats the factual basis of her non-refoulement claim. She also sets out some general legal principles concerning assessment of non-refoulement claims, but fails to explain how those principles are applicable to her case.

5.  Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, we determine the present application for leave to appeal on paper without an oral hearing.

6.  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.

7.  No question of great general or public importance involved in the intended appeal is identified in the Notice of Motion. We are unable to see any such question being involved in the intended appeal. The Applicant has not identified any error in the CA Judgment, or raised any viable ground of appeal against the CA Judgment. We are satisfied that the intended appeal has no reasonable prospect of success.

8.  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.

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