Re Luong Thi Thuy

CACV 368/2021

[2022] HKCA 1790

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 368 OF 2021

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 188/2021)

________________________

________________________

Before:  Hon Chu VP and Barma JA in Court

Date of Judgment:  12 December 2022

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

Hon Barma JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.On 25 February 2022, this court (Chu JA (as she then was) and Barma JA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung given on 20 July 2021 refusing leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dismissing the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting her non-refoulement claim.

2.The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment.[1]  We will not repeat them here.

3.The applicant subsequently applied, by a Notice of Motion filed out of time on 22 April 2022, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the applicant stated, inter alia, that:

(1)  if she returned to Vietnam, her life will be “seriously threatened”;

(2)  the option of internal relocation, as suggested by the Director of Immigration, is “completely unfeasible” as she will not be able to adapt to life in a new location;

(3)  the Immigration Department failed to consider her human rights under various statutes and treaties.  

4.In the affirmation filed on 22 April 2022, the applicant deposed that the decision by this court had been reached unfairly without allowing her an opportunity to clarify her case.

5.In breach of the directions by the Registrar of Civil Appeals, the applicant failed to lodge written submissions with the court. She is thus deemed to have abandoned her right to rely on written submissions.

6.Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion and affirmation, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on the papers.  We have therefore determined the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents filed.

7.The applicant failed to explain how and when she eventually came to know about the judgment of this court.  We are therefore of the view that the applicant has failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay.

8.In any event, the matters advanced by the applicant do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484.  Nor is any such question apparent to us from the matters she has raised.

9.None of the matters stated in the Notice of Motion are therefore in our view reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

10.For these reasons, the Notice of Motion filed on 22 April 2022 is dismissed.

The applicant acting in person