RE DEUNA LEILA DE LEON

CAMP 185/2025, [2026] HKCA 859

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 2093

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 185 OF 2025

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2634 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Au JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge To (“the Judge”)  dated 5 September 2025 ([2025] HKCFI 4012)  (“the EOT Decision”), refusing to grant extension of time to the applicant to appeal against the Judge’s earlier decision dated 20 May 2025 ([2025] HKCFI 2093)  (“the Leave Decision”).

2.  By the Leave Decision, the Judge dismissed her application for leave to apply for judicial review (“the Leave Application”)  against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”)  dated 3 September 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed her appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 8 May 2018, refusing her non-refoulement claim.

3.  The applicant’s background, the basis of her claim and arguments advanced before the Board as well as the Board’s reasons for rejecting her appeal are all set out in the Board’s Decision: see [3] - [12] of the Leave Decision.  The Judge has set out in detail his reasons for refusing the Leave Application: see [14] - [16] of the Leave Decision.  The Judge has also set out in detail his reasons for refusing the extension of time to appeal application taken out by the applicant: see [3] - [8] of the EOT Decision.  We will not repeat those details herein.

4.  By a Summons filed on 15 September 2025 (“the Summons”), the applicant sought to appeal against the EOT Decision but did not provide any ground of the intended appeal.  On the same day, the applicant also filed a supporting affidavit stating:

“… As I was lastly in my Summons of Court of First Instance mentioned I did not received any letter and that was true facts. So I am requesting this court to grant my time extension.” (sic)

5.  Pursuant to the directions made by the Registrar of Civil Appeals dated 15 September 2025, the applicant lodged her written submissions on 29 September 2025. In those submissions, she complained that the Board’s Decision was unreasonable, irrational, procedurally unfair and discriminatory against her given her lack of language and legal assistance.

6.  Having considered the documents, we are of the view that it is appropriate to determine this application on paper without a hearing pursuant to Order 59, rule 14A of the Rules of the High Court (Cap 4A)  (“the RHC”).

Discussion

7.  Following the approach this court has adopted in Tang Chai On v Tang Sing Ki [2016] 5 HKLRD 104 at [3] - [8], we will treat the present application as a renewed application for extension of time to appeal against the Leave Decision.

8.  Under Order 53, rule 3(4)  of the RHC, the applicant may appeal against the Leave Decision to the Court of Appeal within 14 days of the order.  In deciding whether to extend time to appeal, the court will take into account the length of the delay, the reasons for the delay, the chances of the appeal succeeding, and the degree of prejudice to the other party if an extension of time is granted.

9.  The prospect of success of an intended appeal is important.  The court will not grant an extension of time to appeal for a hopeless appeal to be pursued: Re Adumekwe Rowland Ejike [2019] HKCA 702, at [19].

10.  The Court of Appeal’s general approach in dealing with appeals in non-refoulement cases is set out in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14].  In particular, in an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in non-refoulement cases, the Court of Appeal would only examine the decision of the judge in light of the grounds advanced by the applicant.  If no viable ground is put forward to reverse the judge’s decision, the appeal should be dismissed.  The Court of Appeal’s role is not to examine the Board’s decision afresh as if it is a fresh application for judicial review (see Nupur Mst at [14(6)]).

11.  As noted by the Judge at [1] of the EOT Decision, the applicant first applied for extension of time to appeal before the Judge by way of a summons filed on 25 July 2025.  By then, she was late for over 1.5 months in taking out her application: [2] of the EOT Decision. We agree with the Judge that the delay was substantial and that she had given no good reason to justify her substantial delay: see [3] - [5] of the EOT Decision.

12.  Further, her assertions in support of her intended appeal are all general, vague and bare which are not proper grounds of appeal.  She also fails to identify any error with specific particulars against the Leave Decision.  Her complaints on the lack of legal and language assistance are new and not raised in the Court below.  It is well established that this court will generally not entertain new arguments which are fact and evidence sensitive and have not been canvassed in the Court of First Instance and for which leave has not been sought within time: Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration, supra, at [14]; and Re Gurpreet Singh [2021] HKCA 1740 at [15].  We also noted that the all documents filed into court by the applicant are in English.  Clearly, the applicant is able to obtain assistance in English.  In any event, as a matter of law, a non-refoulement claimant is not entitled to free legal representation at all stages of the process and that the high standard of fairness required by law does not entail interpretation service being made available to an applicant all the time as she desires: Re Zunariyah [2018] HKCA 14 at [18]; Re Zahid Abbas [2018] HKCA 15 at [11] and Re Tariq Farhan [2018] HKCA 17 at [11].  Moreover, the applicant was also assisted by interpreters during the respective hearings before the Judge and the Board[1] and had been provided with ample opportunities to present her case and did so.  We see no prejudice suffered by the applicant.  Her complaints must fail.

13.  In the absence of demonstrating any error in the Leave Decision, the applicant’s assertions are plainly not valid grounds of appeal.  We see no basis to disturb the Leave Decision.

14.  Accordingly, there is no prospect of success in the applicant’s intended appeal.  It is thus futile to grant the applicant any extension of time to appeal against the Leave Decision.

15.  The Summons is hereby dismissed.