RE NGUYEN PHIEN HIEU

CAMP 349/2022, [2025] HKCA 554

On an intended appeal from [2021] HKCFI 1443

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 349 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 393 OF 2021)

____________________

____________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.  On 29 March 2023, this court (Cheung JA and Barma JA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of DHCJ Bruno Chan dated 26 January 2022 refusing to extend time for the applicant to appeal against his decision dated 21 May 2021 refusing to extend time for the applicant to apply for leave to apply for judicial review and refusing to grant such leave. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dismissing his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting his non‑refoulement claim.

2.  The facts and issues in the applicant’s application, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment.[1]  We will not repeat them here.

3.  The applicant subsequently applied, by a Notice of Motion filed out of time on 10 May 2023, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the applicant repeated that his life would be “seriously threatened” should he be refouled to Vietnam.  He stated that he wished to “seek justice” by appealing to the Court of Final Appeal.

4.  In breach of the directions by the Registrar of Civil Appeals, the applicant failed to lodge any written submissions with the court.  He is therefore debarred from lodging and relying on the same.

5.  Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on the papers.  We have, therefore, determined the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents filed.  

6.  The applicant has failed to proffer any explanation whatsoever for the delay (of around 2 weeks) in filing the Notice of Motion.  Notwithstanding that the present application is liable to be dismissed on this basis alone, we have proceeded to consider the merits of the application.

7.  The matters stated by the applicant do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484.  Nor is any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised.

8.  The Notice of Motion failed to provide any particulars in the supposed errors in our judgment and it raises no ground that is reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.  

9.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b). 

10.  For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 10 May 2023 is dismissed.