RE NGUYEN THI LAN

CAMP 111/2022, [2023] HKCA 1297

On Appeal From [2021] HKCFI 3503

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 111 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1611 OF 2019)

_________________________

_________________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.  On 19 July 2023, this court handed down judgment (in Chinese, following the language of the matter referred to below) ([2023] HKCA 852) dismissing the applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal against an order of DHCJ P Li given on 29 November 2021 in which he refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review in respect of her non‑refoulement claim.

2.  The facts and issues in the application before this court, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment and will not be repeated here.

3.  On 28 July 2023, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion (in English) for leave to appeal against this court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. 

4.  The applicant advanced the following in the Notice of Motion:

“1. The learned Judges were wrong as a matter of law for not having applied the principle of irrationality to the decision made by the Director of Immigration refusing my application for Judicial Review.

2. There is some error in law in my decision. The decision maker just relied on COL information and my previous facts, which were favour on rejecting my claim.

3. Actual life occurs in different situation than COL information. Officers and courts prefer to ignore the overwhelming evidence of violence towards minorities, searching for unrealistic silver linings.

4. The Judge did not apply the law properly.”

5.  Notwithstanding the directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals given the same day, the applicant failed to lodge any written submissions in support of the Notice of Motion.  As it is appropriate to do so, the Notice of Motion is determined on paper without an oral hearing.

6.  Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (“HKCFAO”) (Cap. 484) provides that leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal may be granted 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.

7.  No question of great general or public importance has been identified by the 1^st applicant as required by section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.  The matters referred to in paragraphs 1 to 3 of the Notice of Motion are not of great general or public importance.  In paragraph 4 of the Notice of Motion, the applicant made a bare assertion that the law has not been applied properly, but she failed to identify any question of law, let alone one of great general or public importance.

8.  Nor do we see any basis for granting leave under the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

9.  By reason of the above, the Notice of Motion filed on 28 July 2023 is dismissed.