RE NGUYEN MANH TAI

CAMP 565/2021

[2023] HKCA 356

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 565 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1144 OF 2018)

____________________

____________________

_________________

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 10 January 2023.

2.  By Notice of Motion filed on 3 February 2023, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA.  In that document the applicant stated that the court and the authorities had been negligent and failed to discharge a duty of care owed to non-refoulement claimants like him.  He said he was not the only one who did not understand English and had been discriminated against and put at a disadvantage because of this.

3.  In his written submissions lodged on 17 February 2023, the applicant stated that whilst interpretation service does not have to be made available at all times to a claimant, it does not mean that the basic right of a litigant to understand the contents of the process or judgment should be deprived.  He said no assistance had been given to him with regard to his BOR 2 risk claim.  He said that the lack of sound judgment and fairness throughout the claim process was appalling and should not be tolerated and that the Court of Appeal should investigate and correct such misbehaviour.  He also repeated the contents of his Notice of Motion.

4.  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.

5.  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.

6.  Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.