NGUYEN THI HOA AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
HTML content
CACV 334/2023, [2024] HKCA 294
On Appeal From [2023] HKCFI 2610
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 334 OF 2023
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1023 OF 2019)
________________________
BETWEEN | ||
| NGUYEN THI HOA | 1st Applicant | |
| DO TUAN ANH | 2nd Applicant | |
| and | ||
| TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE | Putative Respondent | |
| and | ||
| DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION | Putative | |
| Interested Party | ||
_____________________
| Before: | Hon Au and Chow JJA in Court |
| Date of Judgment: | 3 April 2024 |
________________
J U D G M E N T
________________
Hon Chow JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. On 10 October 2023, Deputy High Court Judge To made an order refusing to grant the Applicants leave to apply for judicial review. The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 10 April 2019, whereby the Board dismissed the Applicants’ appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 3 January 2017 rejecting their non-refoulement claims.
2. On 31 January 2024, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the 2nd Applicant’s appeal against the Judge’s order of 10 October 2023. The basic facts of this case and the Court’s reasons for dismissing the 2nd Applicant’s appeal have been set out in the CA Judgment and will not be repeated here.
3. By Notice of Motion dated 19 February 2024, the 2nd Applicant applies for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the 2nd Applicant essentially repeats what he previously stated in his Notice of Appeal dated 24 October 2023.
4. The 2nd Applicant has failed to lodge written submissions in support of his application contrary to the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals dated 19 February 2024.
5. Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, we determine the present application for leave to appeal on paper without an oral hearing.
6. 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 the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal in any civil cause or matter if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal (as the case may be), 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.
7. 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. The 2nd Applicant has not identified any error in the CA Judgment, or raised any viable ground of appeal against the CA Judgment. We are satisfied that the intended appeal has no merits and no reasonable prospect of success.
8. There is also no basis to grant leave to appeal on the “or otherwise” limb in s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance.
9. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is refused and the Notice of Motion is dismissed.
| (Thomas Au) Justice of Appeal | (Anderson Chow) Justice of Appeal |
The Applicant, acting in person