RE NGUYEN THI LUYEN AND ANOTHER

CACV 321/2022, [2023] HKCA 580

On Appeal From [2022] HKCA 1838

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 321 OF 2022

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2064 OF 2018)

_______________

_______________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

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

1.  By a judgment dated 8 December 2022 ([2022] HKCA 1838) (“the Judgment”), this court dismissed the appeal by the 2^nd and 3^rd applicants (collectively referred to as “the applicants”) against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge To dated 26 July 2022 ([2022] HKCFI 2239) (“the Leave Decision”).

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 only stated they “would like to review case not agreed with the decision”.

5.  Pursuant to Practice Direction 2.1, the applicants lodged their written submissions on 3 January 2023.  In those submissions, they repeated the factual basis of their non-refoulement and contended that they would be harmed or killed by public officers and money lender for unpaid debts in Vietnam and that the 3^rd applicant would be sold to China.

6.  The matters raised in their Notice of Motion and written submissions 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].  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.