Mahyavanshi Rajeshbhai Balubhai v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 938/2025, [2026] HKCA 1209

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 4656

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 938 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1910 OF 2020)

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Eugene Fung J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.This is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”). The applicant is an Indian national whose claim for non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong was rejected by the Director of Immigration and by the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”). His application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision was dismissed by the Court of First Instance. His appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court in our judgment dated 13 February 2026.

2.By Notice of Motion filed on 23 February 2026, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA.  In that document the applicant stated that he was not satisfied with the order without any particulars. 

3.The applicant lodged written submissions which were received by the court on 5 March 2026.  It was asserted in those submissions that the applicant lacked legal and language assistance and that the Board and the Director were in breach of procedural fairness, without demonstrating how he has been affected by the alleged lack of assistance or the alleged breach in the context of his present application.  

4.There is no reason for us to depart from the usual practice of determining an application for leave to appeal on the basis of the available materials without an oral hearing, as set out in paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1.

5.We take the view that this application ought to be dismissed because the applicant has not shown that the intended appeal raises any question which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the CFA for decision (which is the condition for giving leave to appeal under section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484), and also because he has failed to show any prospects of success in the intended appeal.

6.Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.

The Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person