RE PHAM THI THUY

CAMP 41/2023, [2024] HKCA 546

On Appeal From [2023] HKCA 1222

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 41 OF 2023

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1263 OF 2018)

____________________

____________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Hon Au JA (giving the judgment of the court):

1.  On 2 November 2023, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against this court’s (Yuen and Au JJA) judgment of 27 October 2023 (“the Judgment”) ([2023] HKCA 1222).  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’s (“the Judge”) dated 15 March 2021, by which the Judge dismissed her application for leave to apply for judicial review ([2021] HKCFI 639).

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 her Notice of Motion filed on 2 November 2023, the applicant reiterated that her life would be seriously threatened as creditors and gangsters might harm or kill her.  She further claimed that as she was not an active person and thus internal relocation would not be feasible.  She also claimed that the Immigration Department failed to consider her human rights under various legislations.

5.  Contrary to Practice Direction 2.1, the applicant did not lodge any written submissions.

6.  In our view, the applicant’s application is devoid of merits.  She fails to give any proper ground of appeal or identify any specific error in the Judgment.  Her allegations are all general, vague and bare without any specific particulars or evidence in support.  General assertions of her fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].  Clearly, her assertions do not constitute proper grounds of appeal.

7.  Further and in any event, even taking it at its highest, her allegations remain fact-specific and do not relate to any question of great general or public importance.

8.  Accordingly, the applicant 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 is dismissed.