|
CACV 224/2022
[2022] HKCA 1597
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 224 OF 2022
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 444 OF 2019)
________________________
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
NGUYEN THI PHUONG |
Applicant |
| |
and |
|
| |
TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE |
Putative Respondent |
| |
and |
|
| |
DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION |
Putative Interested Party |
________________________
| Before: |
Hon Cheung and Chow JJA in Court |
| Date of Judgment: |
3 November 2022 |
________________
J U D G M E N T
________________
Hon Chow JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. On 26 August 2022, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge To dated 20 May 2022 refusing to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 13 February 2019, whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 3 August 2017.
2. The Applicant now applies by Notice of Motion dated 20 September 2022 for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant stated that it was unsatisfactory that the Court of Appeal ruled that she had no chance of success in reviewing the Board’s decision, and repeated the factual basis of her non-refoulement claim.
3. The Applicant has failed to lodge written submissions contrary to the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals dated 20 September 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.
(Peter Cheung)
Justice of Appeal |
(Anderson Chow)
Justice of Appeal
|
The Applicant, acting in person
|