TRAN THI THUY QUYNH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CAMP 275/2021

[2021] HKCA 1976

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 275 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1641 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.  On 8 November 2021, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”)  dismissing the Applicant’s application for leave to appeal the order of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung (“the Judge”)  dated 12 July 2021 dismissing the Applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal the Judge’s earlier order dated 2 June 2020 refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office/Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”)  dated 16 May 2018.

2.  The Applicant now applies by Notice of Motion dated 16 November 2021 for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant states that it was unsatisfactory that the Court of Appeal ruled that she had no chance of success in reviewing the Board’s decision, and repeats her claimed fear upon return to Vietnam.

3.  In her written submissions dated 24 November 2021, she repeats the background facts in support of her claim, and sets out some general principles of public law relating to non-refoulement claims.

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, inter alia, the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal 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.  There is also no basis to grant leave to appeal on the “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.