Re Lorenzo Jonalyn Ibus

CACV 410/2023, [2025] HKCA 143

On Appeal From [2024] HKCA 543

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 410 OF 2023

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1539 OF 2019)

_______________

_______________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

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

1.On 26 June 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 543). In the Judgment, we dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge To (“the Deputy Judge”) dated 30 November 2023, by which the Deputy Judge dismissed her application for leave to apply for judicial review ([2023] HKCFI 3100).

2.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.

3.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.

4.In her Notice of Motion, the applicant merely stated:

“I don’t agree the decision and I want to appeal” (sic)

5.Pursuant to Practice Direction 2.1, the applicant lodged her written submissions on 10 July 2024.  In those submissions, the applicant repeated the factual basis and procedural history of her non-refoulement claim.  She also contended that she wanted “to go the Court of Final Appeal” and that all asylum seekers “have big problem” and she wanted to “appeal for all”.

6.In our view, her application is a non-starter.  The matters raised in her Notice of Motion and written submissions are all general and bare allegations without any specific particulars or explanation.  She fails to give any specific particulars as to any error in the Judgment.  She also fails to give any detail as to how other asylum seekers’ cases are relevant to her own.  Her allegations do not constitute proper grounds of appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

7.Further, even taking her case as its highest, the applicant’s allegations remain fact-specific and do not relate to any question of great general or public importance.

8.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.

9.For these reasons, the applicant’s intended appeal has no merit.  Accordingly, the Notice of Motion filed on 26 June 2024 is dismissed.

The applicant acting in person