RE MOGADO HAIDEE TALOSIG alias MOGADO HAIDEE alias MOGADO HAIDEE T. alias TALOSIG HAIDEE

CAMP 587/2021

[2022] HKCA 1742

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 587 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1004 OF 2018)

_______________

_______________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

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

1.  On 27 September 2022, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against this Court’s judgment of 1 September 2022 (“the Judgment”) ([2022] HKCA 1282). In the Judgment, we dismissed the applicant’s reapplication for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the Deputy Judge”) dated 22 April 2021, refusing her application for leave to apply for judicial review ([2021] HKCFI 1118).

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, the applicant stated:

“DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD DISMISSED MY NONREFOULEMENT CLAIM. I WAS NOT SATISFAID SO I CAME TO THE HIGH COURT FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW. THE HIGH COURT AND THE COURT OF APPEAL DISMISSED MY APPLY. I WANT TO GO TO THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL.” (sic)

5.  Pursuant to Practice Direction 2.1, the applicant lodged her written submissions on 11 October 2022.  In those submissions, she repeated the factual basis and procedural history of her non-refoulement claim.  She further claimed that “all [her] asylum seeker friends are facing same problem” and that she “will fight for total asylum seeker”.

6.  In our view, her intended appeal is clearly without substance.  At the outset, the allegations made in her Notice of Motion and written submissions are all bare and vague allegations unsupported by any evidence.  She also failed to condescend upon particulars or provide any evidence to show how she and her alleged asylum seeker friends are “facing the same problem” or how her case as any relevance to her alleged friends’ cases.  More importantly, she did not identify any specific error in the Judgment with sufficient particulars.  General assertions of her fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].  Accordingly, the applicant’s intended appeal plainly has no merit.

7.  Further and in any event, the applicant’s contentions are 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 filed on 27 September 2022 is dismissed.