Re v. Hong Diep

CACV 53/2023, [2024] HKCA 376

On Appeal From [2023] HKCA 1378

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 53 OF 2023

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 69 OF 2019)

____________________

____________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Hon Au JA (giving the judgment of the court):

1.By a judgment dated 28 December 2023 ([2023] HKCA 1378) (“the Judgment”), this court (Yuen and Au JJA) dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung (“the Deputy Judge”) dated 13 February 2023 ([2023] HKCFI 303), whereby the Deputy Judge refused her application for leave to apply for judicial review.

2.On 4 January 2024, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against the Judgment.

3.The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as this court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in the Judgment.  We will not repeat them here.  After reviewing the Notice of Motion, we see no reason to deviate from the usual practice to consider this application on paper pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1.

4.Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484 (“the HKCFAO”) provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of this court or the Court of Final Appeal 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.

5.In her Notice of Motion, the applicant asserted that she would be killed, tortured or beaten by her creditors and the gangsters if refouled and that internal relocation would not be feasible as she is not an active person.  She further alleged that the Immigration Department failed to consider her human rights under various legislations but failed elaborate on her assertions.

6.Contrary to Practice Direction 2.1, the applicant failed to lodge any written submissions.

7.At the outset, her intended appeal has no merit at all.  The matters raised in her Notice of Motion are all general and bare allegations without any specific particulars or explanation. General assertions of her fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].  The applicant also fails to identify any specific error in the Judgment with particulars.  Clearly, her assertions do not constitute proper grounds of appeal.

8.In any event, even taking her case at its highest, her allegations are fact‑specific and do not relate to any question of great general or public importance.

9.Accordingly, the applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.

10.For these reasons, the applicant’s intended appeal has no merit.  Accordingly, the Notice of Motion filed is dismissed.