Mendy Babou v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CAMP 182/2025, [2026] HKCA 1738

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 1044

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 182 OF 2025

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2965 OF 2019)

____________________

BETWEEN

____________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

Hon Anthony Chan JA (giving the Judgment of the Court) :

1.On 10 March 2026, this Court (Anthony Chan JA and Wilson Chan J) handed down a Judgment ([2026] HKCA 186) (“Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s summons filed on 9 September 2025 (“Summons”) applying for an extension of time to appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge K. W. Lung (“Judge”) dated 15 April 2025 by which his application for leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed (“Leave Decision”). The intended judicial review concerned the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting his non-refoulement claim.

2.The facts and issues in the Applicant’s application, as well as this Court’s reasons for dismissing it, were set out in the Judgment. We will not repeat them here.

3.The Applicant now applies, by a Notice of Motion filed on 11 March 2026, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”).

4.In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant stated that :

“Im pleading to the court to give me chance to appeal at supreme court agains the Judgment dated on 10 March 2026 by Hon. Anthony Chan JA And Wilson Chan J in court. The Judgment Reached unreasonable”.

5.The Applicant lodged written submissions on 25 March 2026 in which he claimed that he would be harmed and killed by his enemies and the Leave Decision was unreasonable. He also explained that he applied for an extension of time because he received the court’s decision late. It appears that here the Applicant was referring to the Leave Decision because he was not late in filing the Notice of Motion.

6.There is no reason for us to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of the present type on the basis of the available materials without an oral hearing in accordance with para.3 of Practice Direction 2.1.

7.The matters stated in the Notice of Motion do not constitute any proper ground for granting leave to appeal to the CFA. The Applicant has not raised any question of great general or public importance for the CFA to consider, as required by s.22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484. We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under s.22(1)(b).

8.The grounds in the Notice of Motion are without substance. The Notice of Motion did not identify any error in the Judgment, nor did the written submissions. The Applicant’s explanation in the written submissions that his delay was due to receiving the Leave Decision late was not given to this Court or to the Judge in his application for extension of time to appeal against the Leave Decision. In any case, this Court could find no merit in the Applicant’s intended appeal against the Leave Decision (Judgment, [9] and [10]). There is no merit in this application.

9.For these reasons, we dismiss the Notice of Motion with no order as to costs.

The Applicant acting in person