RE BUI PHU LE

CAMP 158/2021

[2022] HKCA 44

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 158 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2401 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon G Lam JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  The applicant is a Vietnamese national whose non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration and the Torture Claims Appeal Board/adjudicator of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office. His application for leave for judicial review of the Board’s decision was rejected by Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung,[1] and his intended appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court on 28 October 2021.[2]

2.  The relevant facts and procedural history and the reasons for dismissing the appeal have been set out in our previous judgment and will not be repeated here.

3.  The applicant now seeks, by Notice of Motion dated 22 November 2021, leave to appeal further to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the applicant stated:

“ 1. The learned Judges were wrong as a matter of Law for not having applied the principle of procedural unfairness to the decision of the director whereby the director was required to give reasons justifying the decision.

2. 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.

3. There is some error in law in my decision. The decision maker just relied on COL information any my previous facts, which were favor on rejecting my claim.

4. Actual life occur different situation then mentioned COL information. Officer and courts prefers to ignore the overwhelming of the evidence of the violence towards minorities searching for unrealistic silver lining.

5. The Judge did not apply the law properly & Procedural unfairness.

6. I further want to explain that my life is in danger in my country.  I would be killed or harmed if I return back to my country.”

The applicant filed an affirmation on the same day in which he simply asked that leave be given to file the Notice of Motion out of time as he did not receive any judgment from the court dismissing his summons.

4.  Despite the acknowledgment by the applicant on 22 November 2021 of the requirement under Practice Direction 2.1 and the directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals on the same day, the applicant has not lodged any written submissions in support of this application.  We consider it appropriate to deal with the application on paper.

5.  The applicant has not put forward any ground of appeal or questions of importance involved in the appeal.  Having considered the materials available, we are satisfied that there is no reasonable prospect of success in the intended appeal or any question involved which, by reason of its great general or public importance, ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision, as required by section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484).  Nor do we see any reason why the applicant should, for some other reason, be allowed to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

6.  The Notice of Motion is therefore dismissed.