Abid Ali Hassan v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 205/2025, [2026] HKCA 70

On Appeal from [2025] HKCFI 1484

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 205 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 3806 OF 2019)

________________________

_____________________

________________________

JUDGMENT

________________________

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

THE APPLICATION

1.On 19 November 2025, this Court (Chow JA and H. Au-Yeung J) handed down a judgment ([2025] HKCA 1005) (“the Judgment”) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Martin Wong dated 11 April 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 8 December 2025, the applicant applied for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal by contending that:

(1)     The decision was procedurally unfair;

(2)     The decision-maker failed to take into account relevant matters;

(3)     The decision-maker took into account irrelevant matters;

(4)     The decision was unreasonable and/or irrational and involved an error of law;

(5)     The decision-maker misunderstood or wrongly relied on the applicant’s statements, including any alleged admission that he was no longer at risk;

(6)     The decision-maker failed to consider the applicant’s evidence and submissions regarding political threats, lack of state protection, and risk of harm;

(7)     The decision-maker failed to give adequate reasons for rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

3.In his written submissions dated 19 December 2025, he had referred to various legal principles without explaining in what ways those principles are engaged in the present application.

4.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

5.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.

6.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.

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

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

DISPOSITION

9.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. 

10.The Notice of Motion filed on 8 December 2025 is therefore dismissed.

The Applicant, acting in person