Re Do Thi Thinh

CACV 254/2021

[2022] HKCA 1579

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 254 OF 2021

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2454 OF 2019

AND HCAL NO. 712 OF 2020

(Consolidated pursuant to the Order of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan dated 6 October 2020))

________________________

________________________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

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

I. Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal

1.On 26 January 2022, this Court handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 7 May 2021 in which he refused to grant extension of time for leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review.

2.The facts and issues of the appeal as well as the Court’s reasons for dismissing it are set out at [3] and [4] in our judgment.  We will not repeat them here.

3.The applicant now applies, by a Notice of Motion filed on 8 February 2022, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. 

4.The applicant stated in the Notice of Motion that she would be harmed or killed if she is returned to Vietnam. 

5.In her written submissions, the applicant repeated the background of her case. She also stated general legal principles of non-refoulement without specifying how those principles relate to the particulars of her case.

II.  Legal principles

6.Under section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484)  (‘Ordinance’)  leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal will only be granted if the question to be determined involves great general or public importance or otherwise ought to be determined by the Court of Final Appeal.

III.   Our view

7.The matters stated by the applicant in her Notice of Motion and written submissions do not constitute grounds for granting leave to the Court of Final Appeal. 

8.The applicant has also failed to identify any question of general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine in accordance with section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance.  Nor is there any such question apparent to us from the matters she has raised in her Notice of Motion or written submissions. 

9.Lastly, we also do not see any basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b)  of the Ordinance.

IV.  Disposition

10.For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 8 February 2022 is dismissed.

Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person