Felix Kingsley Chisom v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 596/2025, [2026] HKCA1289

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 2994

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO.596 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 3127 OF 2019)

____________________

BETWEEN

____________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

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

1.By a Judgment dated 10 March 2026, this Court dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung dated 30 July 2025 refusing him leave to apply for judicial review in respect of his non-refoulement claims.

2.By a Notice of Motion filed on 10 March 2026, the Applicant applies for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”) under section 22(1) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484[1], on the ground that :

“I would Like to inform to [CFA]. There were same Error in Law Maker authorities. They were totally Relied on same web news which officially not Recognized. I don’t Think my case determined Fairly.”

3.In his 7-page written submissions, the Applicant repeats the basis of his non-refoulement claim.  The Applicant further says that he disagrees with the decisions of the Director and the Board, and makes general allegations of procedural unfairness and unreasonableness against those decisions.

4.The Notice of Motion does not meet the statutory threshold for leave to be granted because it fails to (a) state any error in the Judgment of this Court; (b) raise any viable ground of appeal that is reasonably arguable; or (c) identify any question of great general or public importance involved in the intended appeal.  Further, there is no basis to grant leave to appeal on the “or otherwise” limb.

5.In the premises, we refuse to grant leave and dismiss the Notice of Motion with no order as to costs.

The Applicant acting in person

[1]  Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance provides that an appeal shall lie to the CFA at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the CFA in any civil cause or matter if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal or the CFA, 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 CFA for decision.