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

CACV 269/2025, [2026] HKCA 629

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 1687

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 269 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 3803 OF 2019)

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Chow JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.On 25 April 2025, Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims)  Martin Wong made an order refusing to grant to the Applicant leave to apply for judicial review. The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 6 December 2019, whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 26 September 2019 rejecting his non-refoulement claim.

2.On 19 November 2025, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”)  dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the order of the Judge.  The basic facts of this case and the Court’s reasons for dismissing the Applicant’s appeal have been set out in the CA Judgment and will not be repeated here.

3.By a Notice of Motion dated 3 December 2025, the Applicant applied for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant alleges, inter alia, that:

(1)  The judges were wrong as a matter of law for not having applied the principle of procedural fairness to the decision of the Director, who was required to give reasons to justify his decision.

(2)  The judges were wrong as a matter of law for not having applied the principle of irrationality to the decision made by the Director.

(3)  There was some error of law in his decision. The decision maker “just relied on COL information and [his] previous facts, which were favored on rejecting [his] claim” [sic].

(4)  “Actual life occurs in different situations than mentioned COL information.  Officer and courts prefers to ignore the overwhelming of evidence of the violence towards minorities, searching for an unrealistic silver lining” [sic].

(5)  The judge did not apply the law properly, and there was procedural unfairness.

4.The Applicant further says that he will be killed or harmed if he returns to his country.

5.The Applicant has failed to lodge written submissions in support of his application, contrary to the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals dated 3 December 2025.

6.Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, we determine the present application for leave to appeal on paper without an oral hearing.

7.Under s 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484, an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal in any civil cause or matter 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.

8.The Applicant’s complaints in the Notice of Motion are all general allegations without particulars or substance, and are plainly unsustainable.  No question of great general or public importance involved in the intended appeal is identified in the Notice of Motion.  We are unable to see any such question being involved in the intended appeal.  The Applicant has not identified any error in the CA Judgment, or raised any viable ground of appeal against the CA Judgment.  We are satisfied that the intended appeal has no reasonable prospect of success.

9.There is also no basis to grant leave to appeal on the “or otherwise” limb in s 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance.

10.Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is refused and the Notice of Motion is dismissed.

The Applicant, acting in person