RE TA DUY HUNG

CACV 288/2020

[2021] HKCA 67

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 288 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 1878/2018)

____________________

____________________

________________________

JUDGMENT

________________________

Hon Lam VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  On 11 December 2020, the Applicant applied by a Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against this Court’s judgment of 4 December 2020. In that judgment we dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung on 15 July 2020 refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review.

2.  Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484 provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”) at the discretion of this Court or the CFA 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 CFA for decision.

3.  In his Notice of Motion, after briefly mentioned the attacks of the loan-shark and his associates in 2014, the Applicant raised, inter alia, the following matters:

“ The officer and courts perfect to ignore the overwhelming of the evidence of this violence towards minorities searching for unrealistic silver lining. The decision is betray a bias and formula approach unlikely fairly access the dangerous of my life and clearly not reasonable.”

I told to immigration officers, I have life danger in my home country the Vietnam.  I come in Hong Kong only for save my life.  I leave my home, my family and my properties, only for save my life.

My immigration officer just assumed in my case, he didn’t know the real situation and situation of Vietnam Because, my immigration officer never visited the Vietnam specially my area and in my case.” 

4.  The remainder of the Notice of Motion consists of general statements of law without identifying how those statements advanced the Applicant’s appeal.

5.  Pursuant to the Court’s directions of 14 December 2020, the Applicant lodged his written submissions in support on 23 December 2020.  Like the Notice of Motion, a substantial portion of those submissions consist of general statements of law without identifying how those statements specifically assisted the Applicant in this appeal. 

6.  At paragraph 12 of his submissions the Applicant referred to some factual allegations (e.g. being detained by Delaware, or having a leadership role within a party, not followed by enemies) which plainly are not matters arising from his case.

7.  The grounds of judicial review set out in paragraph 13 were not those advanced in his Form 86 or his affirmation filed in the Court of First Instance.  Nor were those grounds advanced in the appeal before us. 

8.  At paragraphs 15 to 22 of his submissions, the Applicant again referred to something which is apparently not related to his case.  He mentioned a certificate as to his level of party involvement as a piece of key evidence which was rejected by the Board.  There is no reference to such certificate in all the papers filed by him in the present case and his claim is not related to any party involvement.

9.  It appears that the Applicant has taken these submissions from other cases.

10.  All in all, the Applicant has not raised any reasonably arguable ground of appeal on the merit of his claim, or any discernible or arguable ground for disturbing our judgment.  The matters raised in his Notice of Motion and his written submissions fail to pinpoint any specific error in our judgment or the judgment of the court below.

11.  In any event, in the circumstances, we do not consider that there is any question of great general or public importance or which otherwise ought to be submitted to the CFA for determination.

12.  For these reasons, we refuse to grant leave to appeal to the CFA and dismiss the Applicant’s Notice of Motion.