|
CACV 214/2025, [2026] HKCA 1526
On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 1548
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 214 OF 2025
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 306 OF 2020)
____________
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
NGUYEN THI THANH |
Applicant |
| |
and |
|
| |
TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD |
Putative Respondent |
| |
and |
|
| |
DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION |
Putative Interested Party |
____________
| Before: |
Hon Au and G Lam JJA in Court |
| Date of Judgment: |
25 August 2026 |
_________________
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 is a Vietnamese national whose 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”). Her application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision was
dismissed by the Court of First Instance. Her appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court in our
judgment dated 15 September 2025.
2. By Notice of Motion filed on 3 October 2025 (her duplicated
motion filed on 13 January 2026 is hereby expunged), the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to
the CFA. In that document the applicant essentially merely reiterated the risks she faced if she were to
return to Vietnam. Her written submissions dated 12 January 2026 set out certain passages from various
authorities but did not show how they are relevant to her application.
3. There is no reason for us to depart from the usual practice
of determining an application for leave to appeal 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 she has failed to show any prospects of success in the intended appeal.
5. Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.
(Thomas Au)
Justice of Appeal |
(Godfrey Lam)
Justice of Appeal |
The Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person
|