RE NGUYEN THI NGA

CACV 382/2022, [2024] HKCA 1171

On appeal from [2022] HKCFI 2772

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 382 OF 2022

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 701 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.  On 29 March 2023, this court (Cheung JA and Barma JA)  handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung given on 7 September 2022 refusing to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dismissing her appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting her non-refoulement claim.

2.  The facts and issues in the applicant’s appeal, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment.[1]  We will not repeat them here.  

3.  The applicant subsequently applied, by a Notice of Motion filed on 4 April 2023, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the applicant stated that her life would be “seriously threatened” if she returned to Vietnam, and that she would most likely be arrested by the Vietnamese police.  She further contended (without elaboration)  that the Immigration Department “did not consider [her] human rights under the Basic Law / Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act / International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights / International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights”.

4.  In breach of the directions made by the Registrar of Civil Appeals, the applicant failed to lodge any written submissions with the court.  She is therefore debarred from lodging and relying on the same.

5.  Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on the papers.  We have, therefore, determined the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents filed.

6.  The matters stated by the applicant do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine, as required by section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484.  Nor is any such question apparent to us from the matters she has raised.

7.  The Notice of Motion fails to identify any supposed error in our judgment and the matters stated therein raise no ground that is reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.

8.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

9.  For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 4 April 2023 is dismissed.

The applicant acting in person

CACV 382/2022

[2023] HKCA 424

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 382 OF 2022

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 701/2019)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.  This is an appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung (“the Judge”)  given on 7 September 2022 refusing to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/adjudicator of the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”)  dated 7 March 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”)  dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”)  dated 21 February 2017 (“the Director’s Decision”)  rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

Background

2.  The applicant is a national of Vietnam. She entered Hong Kong illegally on 29 September 2014 and surrendered to the Immigration Department on 3 November 2014.  On the same day as her surrender, she lodged a non-refoulement claim.

3.  The applicant’s claim was based on a fear of being harmed or killed by the Vietnamese police.  The details of the applicant’s claim have been summarised by the Judge at [4] and [5] of the Judge’s decision (“the CALL-1 Form”)[1].

4.  By a Notice of Decision dated 21 February 2017 (i.e. the Director’s Decision), the Director decided against the applicant’s claim. The Director’s Decision covered the BOR 2 risk[2], the BOR 3 risk[3], the persecution risk[4] and the torture risk[5].

5.  The applicant appealed to the Board.  After an oral hearing on 24 January 2019, the Board dismissed the appeal by the Board’s Decision, which covered all four grounds for non-refoulement protection.  The Board found that the applicant’s evidence was incredible and that she had failed to substantiate a real risk of being ill-treated should she return to Vietnam. In any event, the Board found that such risk, if any, could be mitigated by the applicant’s internal relocation in Vietnam and she would also be afforded adequate state protection there.

The Judge’s decision

6.  The applicant filed a Form 86 on 13 March 2019, seeking to judicially review the Board’s Decision, without setting out any grounds.

7.  In her supporting affirmation, the applicant exhibited a copy of the Board’s decision and said that there was a genuine risk that she would be tortured or killed if she returned to Vietnam.

8.  After summarising the facts and background of the case, giving due consideration to the Decisions of the Director and the Board, the Judge refused to grant the applicant leave to apply for judicial review.  The Judge gave the following reasons in refusing leave to apply for judicial review at [13] to [19] of the CALL-1 Form:

“13.  The role of this Court is supervisory, meaning that it ensures that the Board complied with the public law requirements in coming to its Decision on the applicant’s appeal. The Court will not usurp the fact finding power vested in the Director and the Board. See TK v Michael C Jenkins Esq and Director of Immigration [2013] 1 HKC 526, §40 and Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, §14 (1).

14.  The Court will bear in mind that the Board’s Decision should be examined with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny.

15.  In Re: Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022, 9 September 2019, the Court of Appeal held:

‘13.(1)  …Assessment of evidence and COI materials and risk of harm, state protection and viability of internal relocation are primarily within the province of the Board (and the Director). The court will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there are errors of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board.’

16.  There is no valid reason to challenge the Board’s Decision.

17.  The Court does not find any error of law or procedural unfairness in the Board’s Decision. The findings of the Board are not in any respect open to challenge as Wednesbury unreasonable or irrational.

18.  The applicant fails to show that she has any realistic prospect of success in her proposed judicial review.

CONCLUSION

19.  I refuse to grant leave for the applicant to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.  Accordingly, I dismiss her application.”

Grounds for appeal

9.  In the Notice of Appeal filed on 15 September 2022, the applicant stated that she would be tortured, beaten or even killed by the Vietnamese police because of her involvement in a protest.  She also claimed that as her health was “not good”, she would be disadvantaged in the labour market and would not be able to adapt to live in Vietnam.  In her supporting affirmation, she asked the court to allow her “to appeal” stating that she understood that there was a good ground of appeal, although she did not explain what it was.

10.  In breach of the directions by the Registrar of Civil Appeals, the applicant failed to lodge written submissions with the court.  She is thus deemed to have abandoned her right to rely on written submissions.

11.  The applicant did not request an oral hearing and consented to the appeal being disposed of on paper by the court.  We will accordingly deal with the appeal on paper on the basis of the materials already filed with the court.

Discussion

12.  The applicant has in her Notice of Appeal failed to identify any error on the part of the Judge and thus failed to raise any viable ground of appeal.  As this court has often stated, an appeal to the Court of Appeal is not a fresh application for judicial review, it is necessary to identify some error on the part of the judge that would justify this court in intervening.  The applicant has wholly failed to do so.

13.  In her application in the court below, the applicant provided no particulars as to any respects in which the Board had acted unlawfully or procedurally unfairly in reaching its Decision, or how such Decision could be said to be Wednesbury unreasonable.

14.  As this court has repeatedly held, an application for leave for judicial review is not a rehearing of the appeal to the Board and the court’s role is not to act as an avenue of further appeal from the Board.  It is incumbent on the applicant to point out the procedural or other public law errors allegedly committed by the Board.  The Judge would not be required himself to come to a view on whether the applicant would face any of the proscribed risks of harm upon return.  The court should not usurp the role of the Board and will only intervene if public law grounds for doing so are established.  See Re Zunariyah [2018] HKCA 14, Re Qadir Sher [2018] HKCA 160, Hounkpedji Messanh v Torture Claims Appeal Board [2018] HKCA 152, Re Rizwan alias Rizwan Gulistan [2018] HKCA 162, and Re Masoom Parvez [2018] HKCA 163.  The Judge considered the decisions of both the Director and the Board and found no basis for intervening.  In our view, he was clearly correct to do so.

15.  As we have noted, the applicant has advanced no viable grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision.

16.  There is therefore no merit in the appeal and we dismiss the appeal accordingly.

The applicant acting in person