Umer Farooq v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 931/2025, [2026] HKCA 1095

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 4450

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 931 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1050 OF 2025)

________________________

_____________________

_____________________

J U D G M E N T

_____________________

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

1.On 13 October 2025, Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung (“the Judge”) 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 24 April 2025, whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 28 January 2025 rejecting his non-refoulement claim.

2.On 5 February 2026, 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 filed on 10 February 2026, the Applicant applied for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant states the following:

“I would like to inform to Court of Final Appeal. There were some error in law maker authorities. They give totally unfair decision and also they totally relied on some web news which officially not recognized. I don’t think my claim determined fairly.” [sic]

4.In his written submissions dated 25 February 2026 lodged in support of the application, the Applicant makes various allegations, including that he did not know how his case was determined, he was never provided with proper legal and language assistance, the Putative Respondent acted in breach of procedural fairness and unlawfully fettered its discretion, and the Putative Respondent’s decision to refuse his appeal was unreasonable and irrational in the public law sense. It is also alleged that the Putative Respondent failed to meet “the greater care and duty owed to a self-represented claimants” [sic].

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

6.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.

7.The Applicant’s complaints in the Notice of Motion are either general allegations without particulars or substance, and/or are plainly unsustainable. The complaint about lack of legal or language assistance is a new complaint which was not raised in his appeal to the Court of Appeal. The Applicant is not entitled to raise such a complaint, which is fact sensitive, in the present application. In any way, it has no merits since it is well established that a non-refoulement claimant has no absolute legal entitlement to legal or language assistance at all stages of his claim or proceedings for non-refoulement protection. 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 raised any viable ground of appeal against the CA Judgment. We are satisfied that the intended appeal has no reasonable prospect of success.

8.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.

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

The applicant, acting in person