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

CAMP 11/2023, [2023] HKCA 684

On Appeal From [2023] HKCA 463

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 11 OF 2023

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1189 OF 2018)

____________

BETWEEN
	Tran Thi Tinh	Applicant
and
	TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE	Putative Respondent
and
	DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION Putative	Interested Party

____________

Before:

Hon Au and G Lam JJA in Court

Date of Judgment:

1 June 2023

_________________

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”). Her application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision was dismissed by the Court of First Instance. Her application for extension of time to appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court in our judgment dated 31 March 2023.

2.  By Notice of Motion filed on 13 April 2023, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA.  In that document the applicant simply repeated the danger she would allegedly face if she returned to Vietnam.  She claimed that the Immigration Department did not consider her human rights, and asked to be permitted to appeal to the CFA.

3.  Contrary to the directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals, the applicant has not lodged any written submissions for the present application.

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 are of 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 the applicant has failed to show any prospects of success in the intended appeal.

6.  Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.

(Thomas Au) Justice of Appeal

(Godfrey Lam) Justice of Appeal

  

The Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person