有關NGUYEN VAN ANH及另一人的事宜
The Court refused leave to appeal because the applicants failed to demonstrate any arguable error in the Court of Appeal's decision and failed to show that the proposed appeal involved questions of general or public importance as required by s22(1)(b) of Cap 484; consequently the leave application had no real...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] HKCA 199
- Parties
- Applicant: First Applicant (NGUYEN VAN ANH); Applicant: Second Applicant (NGUYEN BAO CHI CHERRY); Respondent: Director of Immigration; Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Judgment Date
- 6 March 2024
- Case Number
- CACV403/2022
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Final Appeal Arising From Civil Judicial Review/immigration Decisions / Leave to Appeal Application Refused by Court of Appeal; Application for Leave to the Court of Final Appeal Before the Court of Appeal (leave Application)
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal refused
- Legal Topics
- Non‑refoulement, Leave to Appeal to Court of Final Appeal, Public Importance Threshold, Time Limits for Appeals
- Source Language
- ch
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
First Applicant (NGUYEN VAN ANH)
Applicant
Second Applicant (NGUYEN BAO CHI CHERRY)
Applicant
Director of Immigration
Respondent
Torture Claims Appeal Board
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Final Appeal Arising From Civil Judicial Review/immigration Decisions / Leave to Appeal Application Refused by Court of Appeal; Application for Leave to the Court of Final Appeal Before the Court of Appeal (leave Application)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants demonstrated an arguable appeal from the Court of Appeal decision
- 2 Whether the proposed appeal raised a question of general/public importance under s22(1)(b) Cap 484
- 3 Whether the leave application was time‑barred
Ratio Decidendi
The Court refused leave to appeal because the applicants failed to demonstrate any arguable error in the Court of Appeal's decision and failed to show that the proposed appeal involved questions of general or public importance as required by s22(1)(b) of Cap 484; consequently the leave application had no real prospect of success.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal refused
Orders
- Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal refused
- Notice of Motion filed on 27 December 2023 struck out/set aside
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
CACV 403/2022, [2024] HKCA 199 香港特別行政區 高等法院上訴法庭 民事司法管轄權 民事上訴 民事上訴案件2022年第403號 （原高等法院憲法及行政訴訟2019年第1090號） 第一申請人 第二申請人 NGUYEN VAN ANH NGUYEN BAO CHI CHERRY 主審法官： 高等法院上訴法庭副庭長朱芬齡 高等法院上訴法庭法官張澤祐 判案書日期： 2024年3月6日 ________________ 判案書 ________________ 高等法院上訴法庭副庭長朱芬齡頒發上訴法庭判案書: 上訴法庭在2023年12月18日作出判決,駁回第一及第二申請人的上訴；該上訴是針對高等法院暫委法官龍劍雲拒絕給予她們提出司法覆核的許可的決定。兩名申請人在2023年12月27日存檔《提出動議通知書》，申請許可就上訴法庭的判決上訴至終審法院。 兩名申請人沒有遵從民事上訴司法常務官的指示提交書面陳詞。 本庭審閱了相關文件，認為適宜根據《實務指示》2.1，以書面方式處理這申請，毋需舉行口頭聆訊。 兩名申請人免遣返聲請的詳情，入境事務處處長及酷刑聲請上訴委員會拒絕她們的免遣返聲請及駁回她們上訴的決定，以及龍法官拒絕給予提出司法覆核許可的判決，本庭的判案書已有述及，在此不重複。 第一申請人提交一份非宗教式誓詞，當中表示收到法庭判決後便申請逾期上訴。第一申請人沒有清楚說明是指龍法官的判決還是上訴法庭的判決。然而，兩名申請人針對龍法官判決提出的上訴並沒有逾期，她們現時針對上訴法庭判決提出的上訴許可申請亦沒有逾期。 香港法例第484章《香港終審法院條例》第 22(1)(b)條規定，申請人須符合以下情況，才可向終審法院上訴： 「如該上訴是就上訴法庭就任何民事訟案或事項所作的判決而提出的，不論是最終判決或非正審判決，而上訴法庭或終審法院 (視屬何情況而定) 認為上訴所涉及的問題具有重大廣泛的或關乎公眾的重要性，或因其他理由，以致應交由終審法院裁決，則上訴法庭或終審法院須酌情決定終審法院是否受理該上訴。」 《提出動議通知書》只是陳述了第一申請人在越南遇到的問題，及前來香港提出免遣返保護聲請的原因。 第一及第二申請人沒有提出任何實質的上訴理由，沒有指出上訴法庭駁回她們的上訴有任何錯誤之處。她們亦未能顯示，擬提出的上訴涉及的問題具有重大廣泛的或關乎公眾的重要性。本案也沒有其他理由以致應交由終審法院裁決。兩名申請人的申請因此不符合第22(1)(b)條的規定。 兩名申請人擬提的申請沒有成功機會。本庭拒絕給予她們上訴至終審法院的許可，撤銷2023年12月27日存檔的《提出動議通知書》。 （朱芬齡） 高等法院 （張澤祐） 高等法院 上訴法庭副庭長 上訴法庭法官 第一及第二申請人：無律師代表，親自行事。