RE HOANG VAN TIEN

CAMP 515/2022, [2024] HKCA 613

On Appeal From [2023] HKCA 1160

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 515 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1118 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.  On 15 November 2023, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal out of time against this court’s (Yuen and Au JJA)  judgment of 16 October 2023 (“the Judgment”)  ([2023] HKCA 1160). 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 23 June 2022, by which the Judge dismissed his application for leave to apply for judicial review ([2022] HKCFI 1903).

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.  Further, pursuant to section 24(2)  of the HKCFAO, the application should be made within 28 days from the date of the judgment to be appealed from.  Thus, the deadline for the applicant to seek leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against the Judgment fell on 13 November 2023.  Accordingly, the applicant was two days late in taking out his application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  For the present purpose, we will focus on the merits of his application.

5.  In his Notice of Motion filed on 15 November 2023, he reiterated that his life would be seriously threatened as his creditors and those gangsters might harm or kill him.  He claimed that as he was not an active person, internal relocation would not be feasible.  He also claimed that the Immigration Department failed to consider his human rights under various legislations.  In his supporting affirmation dated 15 November 2023, he only vaguely stated that he understood that a good ground of appeal was not necessarily considered at the stage of applying for leave for judicial review. However, he did not specify what that said ground was.

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

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

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

9.  Accordingly, the applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance in his intended appeal, 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.

10.  For these reasons, the applicant’s intended appeal has no merit and it will be futile to grant him extension of time to pursue a hopeless appeal.  Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.