RE EUROPA BOBBY JILONGOS

CACV 235/2025 [2026] HKCA 1066

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 1419

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 235 OF 2025

(ON AN APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 3657 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Chu VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  By our judgment handed down on 13 November 2025 ([2025] HKCA 986), this court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Teresa Wu given on 17 April 2025 dismissing his application for leave to apply for judicial review.

2.  On 20 November 2025, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal this court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant also lodged a written submission to support the application.

3.  Having considered the Notice of Motion and written submission, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on paper without an oral hearing.  We have therefore proceeded to determine the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents in the case.

4.  The background to this case and the applicant’s claim have been set out in our Reasons for Judgment. We will not repeat them.

5.  Section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484 provides that leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal may be granted 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.  The grounds for the application as appeared by the Notice of Motion state that: (1)  the Court was wrong as a matter of law for not applying the principles of procedural unfairness and irrationality to the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”); (2)  there is some error of law in that the decision maker just relied on country-of-origin information (“COI”)  and facts that favour the rejection of the applicant’s claim; (3)  actual life is different from the COI, and the officers and the courts chose to ignore the overwhelming evidence of violence towards minorities; and (4)  the Judge did not apply the law properly and there was procedural unfairness.  

7.  The written submission is identical to the submission lodged by the applicant in support of his appeal: see [11] of our judgment.

8.  All the matters put forward by the applicant do not provide any viable grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  First, and critically, no question of great general and public importance has been identified, as required by section 22(1)  (b)  of the Ordinance.  Second, the grounds in the Notice of Motion were general, vague and unparticularised assertions, and do not engage with the reasons for the dismissal of his appeal. Third, for the reasons given in [13] of our Reasons for Judgment, the written submission is unarguable.  

9.  We also do not see any basis for the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)  (b). 

10.  As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.