RE GURUNG GANGA KUMARI

CAMP 489/2022, [2025] HKCA 160

On Appeal From [2024] HKCA 1152

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 489 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 666 OF 2019)

____________________

____________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

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

1.  On 18 December 2024, 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 17 December 2024 (“the Judgment”) ([2024] HKCA 1152).  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 (“the Deputy Judge”) dated 24 August 2022, by which the Deputy Judge dismissed her application for leave to apply for judicial review ([2022] HKCFI 2526).

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:

“1. The learned Judges were wrong as a matter of law for not having applied the principle of irrationality to the decision made by the Director of Immigration refusing my application for Judicial Review.

2. There is some error in law in my decision. The decision maker just relied on COL information and my previous facts, which were favor on rejecting my claim.

3. Actual life occurs in different situations than COL information. Officers and courts prefer to ignore the overwhelming evidence of violence towards minorities, searching for unrealistic silver linings.

4. The Judge did not apply the law properly.” (sic)

5.  The applicant also filed her affirmation on 18 December 2024.  In her affirmation, she stated that she had no means to seek any proper legal advice but she “understood that there was a good ground of appeal that was not necessarily considered at the stage of applying for court of appeal” and that she believed that “the merits of this ground of appeal constitute sufficient reason justification for the Court to exercise its discretion in allowing this appeal”.  However, she did not specify what the alleged ground of appeal was.

6.  Pursuant to Practice Direction 2.1, the applicant lodged her written submissions on 2 January 2025.  In those submissions, the applicant cited various case authorities regarding high standard of fairness and section 37ZT of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap 115, concerning the late filing of notice of appeal to the Board.  However, she did not specify how they are relevant or applicable to the facts of her case.

7.  In our view, the applicant’s application is plainly devoid of merit.  Her assertions are all vague, bare and unsupported by any specific particular or evidence.  General assertions of her fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].  Her allegations are mainly directed at the Director and the Board’s Decisions and she fails to identify any specific error in the Judgment.  They do not constitute proper grounds of appeal.

8.  Further and in any event, even taking her case at its highest, her 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, 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.  Accordingly, the Notice of Motion filed on 18 December 2024 is dismissed.