有關 NGUYEN DUY BACH 的事宜
Permission to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable error in the Court of Appeal's decision, did not demonstrate that the proposed appeal raised issues of general or public importance or other exceptional reasons under s22(1)(b), and did not comply with directions; therefore leave...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] HKCA 1235
- Parties
- Applicant: NGUYEN DUY BACH
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Judgment Date
- 24 August 2022
- Case Number
- CACV365/2021
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal (immigration/non Refoulement) / Application for Permission to Appeal to the Court of Final Appeal
- Outcome
- Permission to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal refused; applicant's Notice of Motion filed 13 May 2022 withdrawn/struck out.
- Legal Topics
- Non Refoulement, Asylum, Leave to Appeal, Judicial Review, Expulsion
- 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
NGUYEN DUY BACH
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (immigration/non Refoulement) / Application for Permission to Appeal to the Court of Final Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether permission to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal should be granted under s22(1)(b) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance
- 2 Whether the proposed appeal has a realistic prospect of success or raises issues of general/public importance
- 3 Whether the application can be determined on the papers given non-compliance with directions
Ratio Decidendi
Permission to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable error in the Court of Appeal's decision, did not demonstrate that the proposed appeal raised issues of general or public importance or other exceptional reasons under s22(1)(b), and did not comply with directions; therefore leave was not merited.
Court Disposition
Permission to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal refused; applicant's Notice of Motion filed 13 May 2022 withdrawn/struck out.
Orders
- Refuse permission to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.
- Withdraw/strike out the Notice of Motion filed 13 May 2022.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
CACV 365/2021 [2022] HKCA 1235 香港特別行政區 高等法院上訴法庭 民事上訴案件2021年第365號 (原本案件編號：高等法院憲法及行政訴訟2018年第2748號) __________________ 申請人 NGUYEN DUY BACH __________________ 主審法官： 高等法院上訴法庭法官區慶祥 高等法院上訴法庭法官林雲浩 判案書日期：2022年8月24日 判 案 書 上訴法庭法官區慶祥頒發上訴法庭判案書： 上訴法庭 (上訴法庭法官區慶祥及上訴法庭法官林雲浩) 於2022年4月28日作出判決 ([2022] HKCA 574)，駁回申請人的上訴。申請人就本庭的判決於2022年5月13日存檔《提出動議通知書》及非宗教式誓詞，申請上訴許可至終審法院。 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其免遣返聲請及駁回其上訴的決定，以及高等法院暫委法官龍劍雲拒絕給予申請人提出司法覆核許可的判決，在本庭的判案書已有述及，本庭在此不再重複。 申請人並沒有遵從民事上訴案司法常務官於2022年5月13日作出的書面指示，呈交任何書面陳詞。本庭審閱了相關文件，認為本申請適宜以書面形式處理，毋需舉行聆訊。 分析及裁決 《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，才可向終審法院提出上訴： 「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。」 本庭認為，申請人擬提出的上訴沒有任何成功機會。申請人在其《提出動議通知書》中，只是重申他在越南遇到的問題，及提出免遣返保護聲請的原因，但他並沒有提出任何實質的上訴理由，亦沒有指出上訴法庭駁回其上訴有任何錯誤之處。他亦未能顯示，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，也沒有其他理由以致應交由終審法院裁決。 基於上述理由，本庭拒絕給予申請人許可上訴至終審法院，並撤銷申請人於2022年5月13日存檔的《提出動議通知書》。 (區慶祥) (林雲浩) 高等法院 高等法院 上訴法庭法官 上訴法庭法官 申請人：無律師代表。