RE NG MAGIE VENTURA

CACV 321/2021

[2023] HKCA 401

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 321 OF 2021

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 2692 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.  On 18 January 2022, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against this Court’s (Au JA and L Wong J)  judgment of 29 December 2021 (“the Judgment”)  ([2021] HKCA 1932). In the Judgment, we dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge To dated 17 June 2021, refusing her application for leave to apply for judicial review ([2021] HKCFI 1738)  (“the Leave Decision”).

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 her Notice of Motion, the applicant complained about the lack of legal and language assistance and that such amounted to error of law or procedural unfairness.  She also said she did not understand the Judgment completely as she did not have a translation of it and was thus deprived of the right to make full grounds of appeal.  She further asserted that she had not abandoned her right to an oral hearing.  She also claimed that she was a genuine non-refoulement claimant who faces grave danger, problems, harassment and torture in her home country, and that the Director of Immigration rejected her claim without any proper inquiry or careful consideration of her situation.

5.  Pursuant to Practice Direction 2.1, the applicant lodged her written submissions on 4 February 2022.  In those submissions, she asserted that the lack of legal and language assistance amounted to unfairness and unreasonableness and that the Board’s Decision and the Leave Decision were not translated to her which deprived her of the opportunity to point out errors in full.

6.  In our view, her intended appeal is wholly without substance.  The allegations made in her Notice of Motion and written submissions are all bare and vague allegations unsupported by any evidence.  She did not identify any specific error in the Judgment with sufficient particulars.  General assertions of her fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].  Further, her allegations in relation to the lack of legal and language assistance have been fully considered and rejected at [18] - [21] of the Judgment, and the applicant did not identify any error in that regard of the Judgment.  The applicant’s intended appeal plainly has no merit.

7.  Further, even taking her case at its highest, her allegations are fact-specific and do not relate to any question of great general or public importance.

8.  Accordingly, the applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance, 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, her intended appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is without any merit.  The Notice of Motion is dismissed.