Re Rajib Hossain

CACV 87/2025, [2025] HKCA 1037

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 504

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 87 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2228 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon H. Au-Yeung J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

THE APPLICATION

1.On 4 August 2025, this Court (Chu VP and H. Au-Yeung J)  handed down a judgment ([2025] HKCA 689)  dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K. W. Lung given on 18 February 2025 refusing leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review.  The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dismissing his appeal from the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting his non-refoulement claim.   

2.By a Notice of Motion filed on 12 August 2025, the applicant applied for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal by contending that:

(1)  This Court did not scrutinise his application properly;

(2)  If he goes back to his home country, he would be killed by his enemies. 

3.In his written submissions dated 22 August 2025, apart from repeating what he had already stated in the Notice of Motion, the applicant further alleged that the Deputy Judge was wrong for:

(1)  not applying the principle of irrationality in that his decision would have the effect of finally disposing of his torture claim;

(2)  not applying the principle of procedural fairness, whereby the adjudicator was required to give reasons for decision;

(3)  failing the high standard of fairness, in that he had reviewed the matter lightly.

4.The applicant also stated that he would suffer from hardship if he were to be repatriated back to his home country.

5.Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion and written submissions, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on the papers.  We have, therefore, determined the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents filed.

DISCUSSION

6.Section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484, Laws of Hong Kong)  (“the Ordinance”)  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.

7.In the present application, the applicant has simply failed to identify any question of great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine.  Nor is any such question apparent to us from the matters which he has raised.

8.Further, the Notice of Motion has not identified any supposed error in our Judgment. 

9.Neither do we see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b)  of the Ordinance.

DISPOSITION

10.For the above reasons, the matters advanced by the applicant do not constitute valid grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. 

11.The Notice of Motion filed on 12 August 2025 is therefore dismissed.

The applicant, unrepresented, acted in person.