RE NGUYEN LAN HUONG AND ANOTHER

CACV 135/2021, [2023] HKCA 557

On Appeal From [2022] HKCA 1704

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 135 OF 2021

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 1660 OF 2018)

_______________

_______________

__________________

J U D G M E N T

__________________

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

A. INTRODUCTION

1.  By a judgment dated 16 November 2022 ([2022] HKCA 1704) (“the Judgment”), this court dismissed, inter alia, the reapplication by the 2^nd and 3^rd applicants (collectively referred to as “the applicants”) for extension of time to appeal against the HCAL 1660 Decision (as defined in the Judgment) contained in the decision of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung dated 23 March 2021 ([2021] HKCFI 672) (“the Decision”).[1]

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 their Notice of Motion, the applicants reiterated that they would be tortured, beaten or even killed if the gangsters were too angry and could not control their emotions and behaviour and that if they returned to Vietnam, their lives would be seriously threatened or even killed.  They also contended that the Immigration Department did not consider their human rights under the Basic Law / Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act / International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights / International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

5.  Contrary to Practice Direction 2.1, the applicants failed to lodge any written submissions

6.  The matters raised in their Notice of Motion are all general and bare allegations without any specific particulars or explanation.  General assertions of their fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].  Moreover, their allegations are all directed to the Director of Immigration and failed to identify any specific error in the Judgment with sufficient particulars.  Accordingly, their allegations do not constitute proper grounds of appeal.

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

8.  Accordingly, the applicants have 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 applicants’ intended appeal has no merit.  Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.