Amin Muhammad v. Torture Claims Appeal Board

CACV 908/2025, [2026] HKCA 1161

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 4775

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 908 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1897 OF 2020)

____________________

____________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

Hon Anthony Chan JA (giving the Judgment of the Court) :

1.On 9 February 2026, this Court handed down a Judgment ([2026] HKCA 37) (“Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan dated 14 October 2025 refusing to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review. The intended judicial review concerned the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting his non-refoulement claim.

2.The facts and issues in the Applicant’s appeal, as well as the Court’s reasons for dismissing it, were set out in the Judgment.  We will not repeat them here.

3.By a Notice of Motion filed on 2 March 2026, the Applicant applies for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”). The Notice of Motion states as follows :

“Dear Sir/Madam,

With due respect and humble submissions I want to let you know that I do not agree with the decision of the court.  All the decisions of the High Court and the Torture Claims Appeal Board are unfair.  I have severe problem in my home country and if I return there I will be killed by my enemies.”

4.The Applicant has failed to lodge any submissions for the present application in breach of the Directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals dated 2 March 2026.  There is no reason for us to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of the present type on the basis of the available materials without an oral hearing in accordance with para 3 of Practice Direction 2.1.

5.The matters stated in the Notice of Motion do not constitute any proper ground for granting leave to appeal to the CFA.  The Applicant has not raised any question of great general or public importance for the CFA to consider, as required by s.22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484.

6.We do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under s.22(1)(b).

7.For these reasons, the Notice of Motion is dismissed with no order as to costs.

The Applicant acting in person