Re Do Van Quang

CACV 248/2023, [2025] HKCA 103

On Appeal From [2024] HKCA 544

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 248 OF 2023

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 704 OF 2023)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.On 3 July 2024, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against this court’s judgment of 19 June 2024 (“the Judgment”)  ([2024] HKCA 544). In the Judgment, we dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the Deputy Judge”)  dated 28 July 2023, by which the Deputy Judge refused to grant him extension of time and dismissed his application for leave to apply for judicial review ([2023] HKCFI 1938).

2.On 2 December 2024, the applicant wrote to this court requesting to “close” his judicial review and “all cases and appeals” because he wanted to go back to his home country as soon as possible due to emergency.

3.On the basis of his said request to dismiss his application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal, we dismiss the Notice of Motion.  In any event, his intended appeal also fails for lack of merit, which we will explain below.

4.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.

5.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.

6.In his Notice of Motion, the applicant reiterated that his life would be seriously threatened as creditors and gangsters might harm or kill him.  He further claimed that as he was not an active person, internal relocation would not be feasible.  He also claimed that the Immigration Department failed to consider his human rights under various legislations. 

7.Pursuant to Practice Direction 2.1, the applicant lodged his written submissions on 26 September 2024.  In those submissions, he cited various general propositions and legal authorities on the high standards of fairness as well as section 37ZT of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap 115, which related to the late filing of notice of appeal before the Board.  However, the applicant failed to specify how those legal principles are relevant to his case.

8.In our view, the applicant’s application is devoid of merits.  His assertions are all vague, bare and unsupported by any specific particular or evidence.  General assertions of his fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].  More importantly, he also failed to identify any specific error in the Judgment.  Clearly, his assertions do not constitute proper grounds of appeal.

9.Further and in any event, even taking his case at its highest, his allegations remain fact-specific and do not relate to any question of great general or public importance.

10.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.

11.For these reasons, the applicant’s intended appeal has no merit.  Accordingly, the Notice of Motion filed on 3 July 2024 is dismissed.

The applicant acting in person