Re Nguyen Van Dien

CACV 171/2022

[2023] HKCA 385

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 171 OF 2022

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 408 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

___________________

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 27 October 2022, this Court (Cheung and Au JJA)  handed down a decision dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 21 April 2022 in which he refused to grant 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 in our decision.  We will not repeat them here.

3.The applicant now applies, by a notice of motion filed on 3 November 2022, for leave to appeal against our decision to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant stated in his notice of motion factual matters, including that if he is to be returned to his home country he would be harmed or killed by creditors or gangsters.  He stated that internal relocation is not possible.  He stated that the gangsters have a nationwide network and can locate him.  He stated that the Director did not consider his human rights.

II.  Our view

4.Under section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484)  (‘HKCFAO’)  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.

5.The matters stated by the applicant in his notice of motion do not constitute grounds for granting leave to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant has 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 HKCFAO. Nor is there any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised in his notice of motion. 

6.We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b)  of the HKCFAO.

III.  Disposition

7.For these reasons, the notice of motion dated 3 November 2022 is dismissed.

Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person