RE LE VAN LOC alias LE VAN HIEN

CACV 399/2022, [2024] HKCA 37

On Appeal From [2023] HKCA 1121

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 399 OF 2022

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 635 OF 2019)

_______________

_______________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

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

1.  By a judgment dated 4 October 2023 ([2023] HKCA 1121) (“the Judgment”), this court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung (“the Deputy Judge”) dated 29 September 2022 ([2022] HKCFI 2995) (“the Decision”), whereby the Deputy Judge refused his application for leave to apply for judicial review.

2.  On 10 October 2023, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against the Judgment.

3.  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.

4.  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.

5.  In his Notice of Motion, the applicant alleges that his life would be in danger if he returned to Vietnam and that creditors and gangsters in Vietnam are cruel and violent and are willing to kill people to satisfy their anger and ferocity.  He also alleges that internal relocation is unfeasible because there will be many difficulties and obstacles that he will have to face in the new location and that his health is not good as he is not an active person.  He further says that the nationwide social network of gangsters and clandestine connections with corrupt people in the government and police apparatus make it quite possible for those creditor and gangsters to find out his new address. He further alleges that the Immigration Department did not consider his human rights under the Basic Law / Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act / International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights / International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

6.  Contrary to Practice Direction 2.1, the applicant failed to lodge any written submissions.

7.  In our view, the applicant’s application is plainly devoid of merits.  His assertions are all vague, bare and unsupported by any specific particular or evidence.  General assertions of his fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].  His allegations are essentially a mere regurgitation of those submissions he had previously made before this court in his appeal, of which we had already considered and rejected: see [9] ‑ [15] of the Judgment.  More importantly, he did not identify any specific error in the Judgment.  It is well established that the Court of Appeal will not allow an application of this nature to be deployed as an occasion for re-running the arguments which had already been canvassed at the appeal: Ho Sin Ying v Chan Yui Ling & Another (unreported, CACV 221/2013, 14 November 2014) at [2] and [3].  Clearly, his assertions do not constitute proper grounds of appeal.

8.  Further and in any event, even taking it at its highest, his 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.  For these reasons, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.