Re Vuong Hong Ha

CAMP 51/2023, [2024] HKCA 781

On Appeal From [2022] HKCFI 913

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 51 OF 2023

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1934 OF 2018)

____________________

____________________

____________________

DECISION

____________________

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

1.On 25 January 2024, this Court handed down decision ([2024] HKCA 93) dismissing the applicant’s application to extend time to appeal an order of Deputy High Court Bruno Chan given on 31 March 2022 refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review in respect of his non‑refoulement claim.

2.On 7 February 2024, the applicant filed a notice of motion applying for leave to appeal this Court’s decision to the Court of Final Appeal.  Despite the directions from the Registrar of Civil Appeals dated 7 February 2024, the applicant failed to lodge skeleton argument by the stipulated time.  The applicant has thereby abandoned his right to rely on written submissions.

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 documents in the case.

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

5.Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (‘HKCFAO’) (Cap. 484) 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.

6.The grounds of appeal stated in the notice of motion are as follows in summary :

1)  Our ruling was unsatisfactory;

2)  The applicant cannot return to Vietnam because if he does he will be tortured and even killed;

3)  The applicant cannot relocate to another part of his home country because his health is not good and he will face difficulties if he returns;

4)  The applicant cannot relocate because his creditors have a nationwide network and can locate him; and

5)  The Director did not consider his human rights under the law.

7.We are of the view that the grounds and arguments put forward by the applicant 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.

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

9.As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, we, accordingly, dismiss the notice of motion.

Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person