Re Truong Thi Lua

CACV 177/2022

[2023] HKCA 386

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 177 OF 2022

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1121 OF 2021)

________________________

________________________

___________________

D E C I S I O N

___________________

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

1.On 27 October 2022, this Court handed down judgment ([2022] HKCA 1607)  dismissing the applicant’s application to appeal an order of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 27 April 2022 refusing her application for leave to apply for judicial review in respect of her non-refoulement claim.

2.On 25 November 2022, the applicant filed a notice of motion applying for leave to appeal this Court’s order to the Court of Final Appeal out of time by one day. The applicant did not lodge written submission.

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 notice of motion in the case.

4.The background to this case and the applicant’s claim have been set out in our judgment.  We will not repeat them.

5.Section 24(2)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (‘HKCFAO’)  (Cap. 484)  provides that application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal shall be filed within 28 days from the date of the judgment to be appealed from.  Section 24(5)  further provides that the Court of Appeal may extend the time for the filing of the notice of motion.

6.The applicant’s present application is out of time by one day.  We will focus on the merit of the application.

7.As to the merit of the intended appeal, section 22(1)(b)  of the HKCFAO 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.

8.The applicant in her notice of motion stated that she will be killed by gangsters if she is to return to her home country.  She said that internal relocation is not possible.  She said that the gangsters have a wide network.  She said that the Immigration Department did not consider her human rights according to the law in force.

9.We are of the view that the grounds and arguments put forward by the applicant are devoid of merit.  They do not constitute viable grounds for giving leave to appeal.  Importantly, no question of great general or public importance has been identified as required by section 22(1)(b)  of the HKCFAO.

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

11.As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, the intended appeal has no merit and there is no basis for us to extend the time for the filing of the notice of motion.  Accordingly, we dismiss the notice of motion.

Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person