RE NGUYEN THI THUY HA

CAMP 336/2022, [2023] HKCA 914

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 336 OF 2022

(ON AN APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 151 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Chu VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  On 24 May 2023, this court handed down our judgment ([2023] HKCA 673)  dismissing the applicant’s renewed application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge To given on 7 January 2022, which refused to give her leave to apply for judicial review.

2.  On 31 May 2022, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal this court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal out of time.  Despite directions given by the Registrar for Civil Appeals, she has not put in a written submission to support the application.

3.  Having considered the Notice of Motion, 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 application for relief from sanctions have been set out in our judgment.  We will not repeat them.

5.  Section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance 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 set out in the Notice of Motion are a repetition of paragraphs 5 to 8, and 10 of the written statement dated 5 September 2022 lodged together with the renewed application for extension of time: see paragraph 17 of our judgment.  In gist, they contend that (1)  if the applicant was refouled, her life would be seriously threatened as internal relocation was not feasible; and (2)  the Director did not consider the applicant’s human rights.

7.  We are of the view that the matters stated in the Notice of Motion do not constitute viable grounds for the application. Importantly, no question of great general and public importance has been identified, as required by section 22(1)(b)  of the Ordinance, had been identified.  Further, for the reasons we gave in paragraph 18(2)  to (4)  of our judgment, they are not reasonably arguable.

8.  We also do not see any basis for the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b). 

9.  As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are therefore not met, we dismiss the Notice of Motion.