RE NGUYEN THI UT

CAMP 597/2021, [2024] HKCA 623

On Appeal From [2024] HKCA 228

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 597 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 775 OF 2021)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.  On 20 March 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 13 March 2024 (“the Judgment”)  ([2024] HKCA 228).  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 Judge”)  dated 19 July 2021, by which the Judge dismissed her application for leave to apply for judicial review ([2021] HKCFI 2060).

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 filed on 20 March 2024, the applicant asserted that she would be killed, tortured or beaten by her creditors and the gangsters if refouled and that internal relocation would not be feasible given her health condition.  She further alleged that the Immigration Department failed to consider her human rights under various legislations but did not elaborate on her assertions.

5.  Contrary to Practice Direction 2.1, the applicant failed to lodge her written submissions.

6.  At the outset, her intended appeal has no merit at all.  The matters raised in her Notice of Motion are all general and bare allegations without any specific particulars or explanation.  General assertions of her fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].  The applicant has also failed to identify any specific error in the Judgment with particulars.  Clearly, her assertions do not constitute proper grounds of appeal.

7.  Further and in any event, even taking them at their highest, her allegations remain fact-specific and do not relate to any question of great general or public importance.

8.  Accordingly, the applicant fails to identify any question of great general or public importance in the 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.

9.  For these reasons, the applicant’s intended appeal has no merit.  Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.