RE DO MANH HAU

CAMP 129/2021

[2022] HKCA 1204

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 129 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1781 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 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”). His application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision was dismissed by the Court of First Instance.[1] His application for extension of time to appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court in our judgment dated 11 November 2021.[2]

2.  By Notice of Motion filed on 14 June 2022, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA. In that document the applicant repeated his claims that he would be beaten and harmed by gangsters if he returned to Vietnam and that his life would be in danger. He stated it was not feasible for him to relocate within Vietnam. He said the Immigration Department did not consider his human rights under the Basic Law and international conventions. The accompanying affirmation of the applicant of the same date stated that the decision by the High Court had been reached unfairly and that there was a good ground of appeal that had not necessarily been considered, though that ground was not specified.

3.  Despite having acknowledged the directions for written submissions to be lodged with the court by 28 June 2022, the applicant has not to date lodged any submissions for the present application. 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.

4.  We take the view that this application ought to be dismissed because (i) it was made seriously out of time; (ii) 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 (iii) the applicant has failed to show any prospects of success in the intended appeal.

5.  Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.