Yolmo Deechen Lamu v. Director of Immigration
|
CACV 540/2024, [2026] HKCA 1728 On Appeal From [2024] HKCFI 3438 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO 540 OF 2024 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1287 OF 2024) ________________________ BETWEEN ________________________
_____________________ J U D G M E N T _____________________ Hon Chow JA (giving the Judgment of the Court): 1.On 5 December 2024, Coleman J made an order refusing to grant to the Applicant leave to apply for judicial review. The intended judicial review was against 2 decisions made by the Director of Immigration, namely:
2.On 24 June 2026, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the order of the Judge. The basic facts of this case and the Court’s reasons for dismissing the Applicant’s appeal have been set out in the CA Judgment and will not be repeated here. 3.By a Notice of Motion filed on 7 July 2026, the Applicant applies for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant alleges that “the learned judges failed to consider the background of [her] case thoroughly”. She also relies on “legitimate expectation” and “humanitarian consideration”. 4.In her written submissions dated 17 July 2026, the Applicant elaborates on her 3 intended grounds of appeal, namely (i) failure of the judges to consider the background of her case thoroughly, (ii) legitimate expectation, and (iii) humanitarian consideration. 5.Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, we determine the present application for leave to appeal on paper without an oral hearing. 6.Under s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484, an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal in any civil cause or matter if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal (as the case may be), 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. 7.In our view, the Applicant is effectively seeking to re-argue her case in her intended appeal. The suggestion that the court failed to consider the background of her case thoroughly is a bare assertion. It is clear from the decision of Coleman J and the CA Judgment that the relevant facts of her case were carefully considered before those judgments were rendered. The point about legitimate expectation was considered at §25 of the CA Judgment, while the point about humanitarian consideration was considered by the Judge at §§46-48 of his decision, and the Judge’s views were endorsed by this Court (see §27(2) of the CA Judgment). 8.No question of great general or public importance involved in the intended appeal is identified in the Notice of Motion. We are unable to see any such question being involved in the intended appeal. The Applicant has not raised any viable ground of appeal against the CA Judgment. We are satisfied that the intended appeal has no reasonable prospect of success. 9.There is also no basis to grant leave to appeal on the “or otherwise” limb in s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance. 10.Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is refused and the Notice of Motion is dismissed with costs to the Putative Respondent. 11.We have considered the Putative Respondent’s Statement of Costs for Summary Assessment dated 4 August 2026. The total amount of costs claimed by the Putative Respondent comes to HK$20,072.50. We summarily assess the Putative Respondent’s costs in the round figure of HK$15,000.
The Applicant, acting in person Mr Rex Cheung, Senior Government Counsel, and Ms Angie Liu, Government Counsel, of Department of Justice, for the Putative Respondent |
Summaries and metadata are generated from the judgment. Report an error
Cases cited in this judgment
Further hearings and rulings under CACV 540/2024