|
CAMP 445/2021
[2022] HKCA 1441
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 445 OF 2021
(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1206 OF 2018)
__________________
| RE: |
BUI
THI LEN |
Applicant |
__________________
Before : Hon Cheung and G Lam JJA in Court
Date of Decision : 28 September 2022
__________________
D E C I S I O N
__________________
Hon Cheung JA (giving the Decision of the Court) :
1. On 29 April 2022, this Court handed down a decision ([2022] HKCA 599) dismissing the applicant’s renewed application to extend time to appeal an order of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung given on 8 March 2021 refusing her application for leave to apply for judicial review in respect of her non‑refoulement claim.
2. On 5 May 2022, the applicant filed a notice of motion applying for leave to appeal this Court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant has also lodged a written submission on 18 May 2022.
3. Having considered the applicant’s notice of motion and written submission, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on paper without an oral hearing. We have, therefore, proceeded to determine the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents in the case.
4. The background to this case and the applicant’s claim have been set out in our decision. We will not repeat them.
5. 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.
6. The grounds of appeal stated in the notice of motion and written submissions are recitals of the background facts leading to the appeal in this case. They relate to finding of facts by the Immigration Department or the Board.
7. We are of the view that the grounds and arguments put forward by the applicant do not constitute viable grounds for giving leave to appeal. Importantly, no question of great general or public importance has been identified as required by section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.
8. Nor do we see any basis for the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).
9. As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, we, accordingly, dismiss the notice of motion.
(Peter Cheung)
Justice of Appeal
|
(Godfrey Lam)
Justice of Appeal
|
The applicant, unrepresented, acting in person
|