Muhammad Sudheer v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 943/2025, [2026] HKCA 630

On Appeal from [2025] HKCFI 4884

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 943 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2249 OF 2020)

________________________

_____________________

________________________

JUDGMENT

________________________

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

1.On 9 February 2026, this court (Anthony Chan JA and H. Au-Yeung J) handed down a judgment ([2026] HKCA 30) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Philips Wong given on 17 October 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 against the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting his non-refoulement claim.

2.By a Notice of Motion filed on 20 February 2026, the applicant applied for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, he stated that:

“1. The learned Judges were wrong as a matter of Law for not having applied the principle of procedural unfairness to the decision of the director whereby the director was required to give reasons justifying the decision.

2. The learned Judges were wrong as a matter of law for not having applied the principle of irrationality to the decision made by the Director of Immigration refusing my application for Judicial Review.

3. There is some error in law in my decision. The decision maker just relied on COL information and my previous facts, which were favor on rejecting my claim.

4. Actual life occurs in different situations than mentioned in COL information. Officers and courts prefer to ignore the overwhelming evidence of the violence towards minorities searching for unrealistic silver lining.

5. The Judge did not apply the law properly & Procedural unfairness.

6.  I further want to explain that my life is in danger in my country.  I would be killed or harmed if I return to my country.”

3.In his Written Submissions lodged on 5 March 2026, the applicant submitted, inter alia, that the Board did not properly assess the applicant’s credibility.  It acted in a procedurally unfair manner, which fell short of the required high standard of fairness.

4.He had also referred to a number of case authorities, but he did not explain the relevance thereof.

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 paper.  We have, therefore, determined the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents filed.

6.The matters stated by the applicant do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  He has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484, Laws of Hong Kong) (“the Ordinance”).  Nor is any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised.

7.The applicant has also failed to demonstrate any error in our judgment.

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

9.For these reasons, the Notice of Motion filed on 20 February 2026 is dismissed.

The applicant, acting in person