Tehseen Yaseen v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CAMP 61 /2025, [2025] HKCA 903

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 279

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 61 OF 2025

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 967 OF 2021)

____________________

____________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

Background

1.This is the applicant’s notice of motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal handed down on 9 May 2025 ([2025] HKCA 424).  The Court of Appeal refused to grant extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge To dated 16 January 2025 as that decision has already been set aside by the judge and the application has become futile.

2.Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, the Registrar of Civil Appeals has directed that the notice of motion shall be determined on paper without an oral hearing.  The applicant lodged his written submissions on 27 May 2025.  Having considered the written submissions and the papers, we think it is appropriate to determine this application on paper and proceed to do so.

Grounds of appeal

3.In the notice of motion, the applicant stated that the authorities totally relied on some web news not officially recognised, that there was no proper investigation on his claim and his case was not determined fairly. 

4.He made the following contentions in his written submissions:

(1)  Without knowing how the case was determined, it is not easy for the applicant to appeal against the decision.  There should be a proper and fair mechanism that allows unrepresented litigants to understand more about their claims;

(2)  The applicant was never provided with proper legal and language assistance.  The Board’s determination has never been read to him in his language.  The failure in providing proper assistance is procedurally unfair;

(3)  The respondent has unlawfully fettered his discretion by refusing the appeal on the grounds that it did not satisfy the requirements;

(4)  The adjudicator was procedurally unfair in dealing with his appeal;

(5)  The respondent’s decisions in refusing his appeal were unreasonable or irrational in the public law sense or are a result of procedural errors or unfairness;

(6)  The respondent failed to meet the greater care and duty owed to a self-represented claimant;

(7)  The discriminatory act of authorities towards non-refoulement claimants merely on the basis of quick disposal of non-refoulement cases is unacceptable and detrimental to the spirit of the judicial system.

Analysis and disposition

5.Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484 provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, from any judgment of the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter, whether final or interlocutory, if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, as the case may be, 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.In the present application, the applicant failed to identify any particular mistakes in the our decision dated 9 May 2025, nor did he identify any question of great general or public importance which ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for determination in accordance with section 22(1)(b).  There is also no basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).

7.For the above reasons, we dismiss the notice of motion filed on 15 May 2025.