RE MTANGI EMILY MOSSES

CAMP 103/2021

[2022] HKCA 128

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 103 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 324 OF 2018)

____________________

____________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

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

1.  On 15 December 2021, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against this Court’s (Chu and Au JJA) judgment of 22 November 2021 (“the Judgment”) ([2021] HKCA 1725). In the Judgment, we dismissed the applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan dated 23 June 2020 refusing to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review ([2020] HKCFI 790).

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 REJECTED MY CLAIM. THE APPEAL BOARD TOO REJECTED MY CLAIM (APPEAL). THE HIGH COURT REFUSED MY LEAVE TO APPLY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW. THE COURT OF APPEAL DID NOT GIVE ME ANY REMEDY. SO I WANT TO GO TO THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL.” (sic)

5.  The applicant lodged her written submissions on 29 December 2021.  In her submissions, she alleged that she had life threat in her own country.  She further contended that in 2016, she surrendered herself to the Immigration and told all her problems to the immigration officer.  Her non-refoulement claim and application for leave to apply for judicial review were eventually dismissed and she wished that this Court would grant her permission to go to the Court of Final Appeal.

6.  In our view, the applicant’s application is wholly devoid of merits.  None of the matters raised in her Notice of Motion or written submissions has identified any specific error in the Judgment.  General assertions of her fear to return to her home country simply do not constitute viable grounds of appeal.  The matters raised in her Notice of Motion and written submissions are all general, bare and vague allegations unsupported by specific particulars or evidence.  Clearly, they do not constitute proper grounds of appeal.

7.  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.

8.  For these reasons, the Notice of Motion filed on 15 December 2021 is dismissed.