Re: ISLAM MOHAMMAD ARIFUL

CACV 340/2024, [2026] HKCA 1214

On appeal from [2024] HKCFI 1922

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 340 OF 2024

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 1739/2019)

------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.On 2 January 2025, this court (Barma JA and Cheng J) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung given on 8 August 2024 refusing leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dismissing his 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, are set out in our judgment.[1]  We will not repeat them here.  

3.The applicant subsequently applied, by a Notice of Motion filed on 9 January 2025, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the applicant repeated his complaints against the Board, such as the Board’s alleged failure to properly consider the fact that he may face “real risk upon refoulement” and to consider his claim “under BOR 2 and BOR 3 risk”. 

4.In breach of the directions made by the Registrar of Civil Appeals, the applicant failed to lodge written submissions in support of the Notice of Motion.  He is thus deemed to have abandoned his right to rely on written submissions.

5.Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on the papers.  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. The applicant 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.  Nor is any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised.

7.The Notice of Motion does not identify any supposed error in our judgment and it raises no ground that is reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.

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

9.For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 9 January 2025 is dismissed.

The applicant acting in person