|
CACV 275/2021
[2022] HKCA 1034
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 275 OF 2021
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2671 OF 2018)
____________________
| RE: |
LE VIET
DUY |
Applicant |
____________________
Before : Hon Cheung and Chow JJA in Court
Date of Decision : 13 July 2022
____________________
D E C I S I O N
____________________
Hon Cheung JA (giving the Decision of the Court) :
1. On 26 January 2022, this Court handed down judgment ([2022] HKCA 146) dismissing the applicant’s application to appeal an order of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 5 October 2018 who refused his application for leave to apply for judicial review in respect of his non‑refoulement claim.
2. On 4 February 2022, the applicant filed a notice of motion applying for leave to appeal this Court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant has also lodged a written submission on 17 February 2022.
3. Having considered the applicant’s notice of motion and written submission, 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 applicant’s claim have been set out at [3] in our judgment. We shall not repeat them here.
5. Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (‘HKCFAO’)(Cap. 484) 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 applicant’s grounds of appeal stated in the notice of motion, which appears to be copied from some proforma seen often in these type of proceedings, can be summarised as follows :
1) Dissatisfaction with the decision of this Court.
2) His life would be in danger if he is returned to Vietnam.
3) The Immigration Department was wrong in reaching its decision in disregarding his human rights.
7. As for the applicant’s written submissions, which again appears to be copied from some proforma, can be summarised as follows :
1) High standards of fairness are required on the part of decision maker in the determination of torture claim as life and limb are in jeopardy and his fundamental human right not to be subjected to torture is involved.
2) The adjudicator acted in a procedurally unfair manner in dealing with his applications without properly assessing the credibility of the applicants.
8. We are of the view that the grounds and arguments put forward by the applicant do not constitute viable grounds for giving leave to appeal. Importantly, no question of great general or public importance has been identified as required by section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.
9. We further do not see any basis for the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).
10. As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, accordingly, we dismiss the notice of motion dated 4 February 2022.
(Peter Cheung)
Justice of Appeal |
(Anderson Chow)
Justice of Appeal |
Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person
|