RE NGUYEN XUAN KHUONG

CAMP 109/2024, [2025] HKCA 844

On Appeal From [2024] HKCFI 561

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 109 OF 2024

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1340 OF 2019)

__________________________________

__________________________________

_____________

DECISION

_____________

Hon Cheung JA (giving the Decision of the Court) :

1)  Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal

1.  On 9 January 2025, this Court handed down the decision ([2025] HKCA 59) dismissing the applicant’s application to extend time to appeal an order of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung given on 22 February 2024 refusing the applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review in respect of the applicant’s non - refoulement claim.

2.  On 15 January 2025, the applicant filed a notice of motion applying for leave to appeal this Court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. Despite the directions from the High Court to the applicant dated 15 January 2025, the applicant failed to lodge the skeleton argument by the stipulated time. Under [6]-[7] of those directions, the applicant has for failing to lodge written submissions in time abandoned his right to rely on written submissions. The Court will deal with this application on the available materials.

2)  Our view

3.  Having considered the applicant’s notice of motion, 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 in our decision. We will not repeat them.

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 stated in the notice of motion essentially the same matters as were stated in his written submissions in the previous application, see [17] of our decision.

7.  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. All the matters contained in the applicant’s notice of motion are matters that are within the province of the Board. They do not show how the Judge had erred.

8.  Importantly, no question of great general or public importance has been identified as required by section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.

9.  Nor do we see any basis for the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).

3)  Disposition

10.  As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, we, accordingly, dismiss the notice of motion.