Ahmed Razu v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 164/2025, [2026] HKCA 2

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 1165

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 164 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 3686 OF 2019)

________________________

_____________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Hon Andrew Chan J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.This is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”). The applicant is a national of Bangladesh whose claim for non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong was rejected by the Director of Immigration and by the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”). His application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision was dismissed by the Court of First Instance.[1] His appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court in our judgment dated 26 September 2025.[2]

2.By Notice of Motion filed on 6 October 2025, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA. The applicant stated that he was not in agreement with the court’s decision and that he would be killed if he was to be returned back to his country.

3.The applicant has not lodged any written submission as directed.

4.There is no reason for us to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on the basis of the available materials without an oral hearing, as set out in paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1.

5.We take the view that this application ought to be dismissed because the applicant has not shown that the intended appeal raises any question which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the CFA for decision (which is the condition for giving leave to appeal under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484), and also the applicant, in our view, has failed to show any prospects of success in the intended appeal.

6.Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.

The Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person