Re Deuna Leila De Leon

CAMP 185/2025, [2026] HKCA 1873

On Appeal From [2026] HKCA 859

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.On 11 May 2026, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against this court’s judgment of 30 April 2026 (“the Judgment”) ([2026] HKCA 859).  In the Judgment, we dismissed the applicant’s reapplication for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge To (“the Judge”) dated 20 May 2025, by which the Judge refused her application for leave to apply for judicial review ([2025] HKCFI 2093).

2.The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as this court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in the Judgment.  We will not repeat them here.  After reviewing the Notice of Motion, we see no reason to deviate from the usual practice to consider this application on paper pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1.

3.Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484) (“the HKCFAO”) provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of this court or the Court of Final Appeal 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.

4.In her Notice of Motion, the applicant stated:

“I would like to inform to the Court of Appeal.  There are some error in my law maker decision.  I am strongly opposed the decisions made by the authorities.  The Respondent’s had unlawfully fettered his discretion by refused my appeal on the grounds that they did not satisfy the requirements.  The Respondent’s failed to meet the greater care and duty owed to a self-represented claimants.  So I do not think my case determined fairly.  There are not proper investigation in my claim.” (sic)

5.Pursuant to Practice Direction 2.1, the applicant lodged written submissions in support of her present application on 26 May 2026.  In those submissions, she complained that the Director’s Decision and the Board’s Decision were unreasonable, irrational and unfair.  She claimed that the Director failed to appreciate or give proper importance or weight to the presence of state acquiescence and the Board placed too much reliance on Country of Origin information but failed to take into account her personal background and experience.  She claimed that the Director and the Board relied on web news which were not officially recognised by the authorities and that there was no proper investigation of her claims.

6.In our view, the applicant’s application is plainly devoid of merit.  Her assertions are all vague, bare and unsupported by any particulars or evidence.  More importantly, her assertions all focus on the Board’s Decision and the Director’s Decision and she has failed to point out any error in the Judgment.  Plainly, her assertions do not constitute proper grounds of appeal.

7.Further and in any event, even taking them at their highest, her allegations remain fact-specific and do not relate to any question of great general or public importance.

8.Accordingly, the applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.

9.For these reasons, the applicant’s intended appeal has no merit and we dismiss the Notice of Motion.

The applicant acting in person