RE NGUYEN DUC BANG

CAMP 173/2023, [2024] HKCA 615

On Appeal From [2024] HKCA 345

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 173 OF 2023

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1434 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.  On 30 April 2024, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against this court’s judgment of 25 April 2024 (“the Judgment”)  ([2024] HKCA 345).  In the Judgment, we dismissed the applicant’s reapplication for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge To (“the Judge”)  dated 12 January 2023, by which the Judge refused to grant him extension of time and dismissed his application for leave to apply for judicial review ([2023] HKCFI 109).

2.  The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as this court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in the Judgment.  We will not repeat them here.  After reviewing the Notice of Motion, we see no reason to deviate from the usual practice to consider this application on paper pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1.

3.  Section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484 (“the HKCFAO”)  provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of this court or the Court of Final Appeal if 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.

4.  In his Notice of Motion, the applicant asserted that he would be killed, tortured or beaten by his creditors and the gangsters if refouled and that internal relocation would not be feasible given his health. He further alleged that the Immigration Department failed to consider his human rights under various legislations but failed to elaborate on those assertions.

5.  Contrary to Practice Direction 2.1, the applicant failed to lodge his written submissions.

6.  In our view, there is no merit in his application.  The matters raised in his Notice of Motion are all general and bare allegations without any specific particulars or explanation.  General assertions of his fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].  Furthermore, his complaints are directed mainly at the Director’s and the Board’s Decisions.  He has failed to give any specific particulars as to any errors in the Judgment.  His allegations therefore do not constitute proper grounds of appeal and are in any event devoid of merit.

7.  Further and in any event, even taking them at their highest, those allegations remain fact-specific and do not relate to any question of great general or public importance.

8.  Accordingly, the applicant fails to identify any question of great general or public importance in the intended appeal, as required by section 22(1)(b)  of the HKCFAO.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b)  of the HKCFAO.

9.  For these reasons, the applicant’s intended appeal has no merit.  Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.