Re Sesay Alpha

CAMP 181/2025, [2026] HKCA 1760

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 1116

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 181 OF 2025

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2485 OF 2019)

_____________________

_____________________

_____________________

DECISION

_____________________

Hon Cheung JA (giving the Decision of the Court) :

1.This is the applicant’s application by summons dated 5 September 2025 for leave to appeal out of time against the judgment of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung dated 15 April 2025 ([2025] HKCFI 1116) (‘the Leave Decision’).  The Judge had by a decision dated 2 September 2025 ([2025] HKCFI 3626) (‘the EOT Decision’) refused to grant extension of time to the applicant to appeal against the Leave Decision.

2.By the Leave Decision, the Judge dismissed his 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 27 June 2019 (‘the Board’s Decision’), whereby the Board dismissed his appeal/petition against the decision of the Director of Immigration (‘the Director’) dated 28 January 2019, refusing his non‑refoulement claim.  The Board refused to grant extension of time to the applicant to file his appeal against the Director’s Decision.

3.The applicant’s background, the basis of his claim and arguments advanced before the Board as well as the Board’s reasons for rejecting his appeal are all set out in the Board’s Decision: see [9]‑[11] of the Leave Decision.  The Judge stated that there was no valid ground to challenge the Board’s Decision and gave his reasons for refusing the Leave Application: see [11]‑[18] of the Leave Decision.  The Judge also set out in detail his reasons for refusing the extension of time to appeal application taken out by the applicant: see [4]‑[16] of the EOT Decision.  We will not repeat those details herein.

4.The applicant claimed that he did not receive the sealed order and the Leave Decision.  He only obtained the documents after searching the court file after the deadline to appeal. 

5.Pursuant to the direction of the Registrar of Civil Appeals dated 5 September 2025, the applicant was required to lodge written submissions by 19 September 2025.  As the applicant failed to do so, he is deemed to have abandoned his right to rely on written submissions.

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’).

I.  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 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 [6] of the EOT Decision, the applicant was late by more than three weeks.

12.More importantly, his intended appeal has no substance.  At the outset, his assertions are all general, vague and bare which are not proper grounds of appeal.  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.

13.Further, we have considered the principles as laid out in Re Qasim Ali [2019] HKCA 430 as the Board’s Decision was decided on 27 June 2019, before the amendment of the current Immigration Ordinance (Cap. 115) at section 37ZT(2) in 2021.  The Board’s Decision at [15] has clearly stated that it has considered the merits of the case.  We do not find anything amiss in the Board’s Decision.

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

15.The applicant’s summons is dismissed.

Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person