Re Pham Thi Dinh

CAMP 525/2022, [2026] HKCA 1204

On appeal from [2021] HKCFI 2067

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 525 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 382/2021)

-----------------------------------

-----------------------------------

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

The Court:

1.On 20 March 2024, this court (Barma JA and Lisa Wong J) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of DHCJ KW Lung dated 23 July 2021 refusing to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review.  The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Director of Immigration refusing the applicant’s request to make a subsequent non‑refoulement claim under section 37ZO of the Immigration Ordinance (Cap 115).

2.The facts and issues in the applicant’s application, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment.[1]  We will not repeat them here.  

3.The applicant subsequently applied, by a Notice of Motion filed on 26 March 2024, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the applicant contended inter alia that her life would be seriously threatened should she be refouled to Vietnam, that her health was “not good”, and that it was not viable for her to internally relocate as “the creditor and gangsters” would still be able to locate her.   

4.In breach of Practice Direction 2.1, the applicant failed to lodge written submissions in support of her Notice of Motion.

5.Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on the papers.  We have, therefore, determined the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents filed.

6.The matters stated by the applicant do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484.  Nor is any such question apparent to us from the matters she has raised.

7.The Notice of Motion failed to identify any supposed errors in our judgment and it raises no ground that is reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.

8.We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

9.For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 26 March 2024 is dismissed.

The applicant acting in person