RE MICHAEL UGOCHUKWU KINGSLEY

CAMP 210/2022

[2022] HKCA 1744

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 210 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 508 OF 2019)

____________________

____________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

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

1.  On 21 October 2022, 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 20 October 2022 (“the Judgment”) ([2022] HKCA 1558). In the Judgment, we dismissed the applicant’s reapplication for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung (“the Deputy Judge”) dated 16 December 2021, refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review ([2021] HKCFI 3789).

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 stated:

“DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD DISMISSED MY NONREFOULEMENT CLAIM. THE HIGH COURT AND THE COURT OF APPEAL DISMISSED MY LEAVE TO APPLY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW. ALL THIS JUDGEMENTS ARE NOT GOOD FOR ME. I WANT TO GO TO C.F.A.” (sic)

5.  Pursuant to Practice Direction 2.1, the applicant lodged his written submissions on 4 November 2022.  In those submissions, he repeated the factual basis and procedural history of his non-refoulement claim.  He claimed that the Adjudicator made many errors and although he had pointed all those out, the Deputy Judge and this Court did not “take his arguments”.  He claimed that he did not “get any practical relation between any decision and [his] arguments” and wished that the Court of Final Appeal will “give a good decision on to [him] and all [his] asylum seeker friend”.  He further claimed that he and his asylum seeker friends “are facing [the] same problem”.

6.  In our view, his intended appeal is clearly without substance.  At the outset, the allegations made in his Notice of Motion and written submissions are all bare and vague allegations unsupported by any evidence.  He also failed to condescend upon particulars or provide any evidence to show how his case has any relevance to that of his “asylum seeker friend” or how they “are facing the same problem”.  More importantly, he did not identify any specific error in the Judgment with sufficient particulars.  General assertions of his fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].  Accordingly, the applicant’s intended appeal plainly has no merit.

7.  Further and in any event, the applicant’s contentions are fact‑specific and do not relate to any question of great general or public importance.

8.  Accordingly, he 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, the applicant’s intended appeal has no merit. Accordingly, the Notice of Motion filed on 21 October 2022 is dismissed.