Uddin Arman Zia v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 677/2025, [2026] HKCA 1466

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 3252

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 677 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1313 OF 2023)

____________________

BETWEEN

____________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

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

1.On 9 April 2026, this Court handed down a Judgment ([2026] HKCA 589) (“Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung (“Judge”) dated 22 August 2025 refusing leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review. The Applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office 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 reasons for dismissing it, were set out in the Judgment. We will not repeat them here.

3.The Applicant now applies, by a Notice of Motion filed on 21 April 2026, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”). In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant stated that :

“I would like to inform to Court of Final Appeal. There are Same Error in my Law Maker authorities. They were not perporly investigation in my claim. Decision Makers not give me Justice. They make same decision like Torture Claim Appeal Board/director of Immigration. I do not Think my case determined Fairly.”

4.In his written submissions lodged on 5 May 2026, the Applicant purported to rely on Wednesday unreasonableness, failure to apply high standard of fairness and procedural unfairness as grounds of appeal. However, there were no particulars showing how those grounds could be established in his case.

5.Having considered the Notice of Motion and written submissions, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this type on paper.

6.The matters raised by the Applicant do not constitute proper grounds for granting leave to appeal to the CFA. He has not raised any question of great general or public importance for the CFA to consider, as required under s.22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484. Further, there is no basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under s.22(1)(b).

7.Neither the Notice of Motion nor the written submissions identified any error in the Judgment. The matters raised by the Applicant are bare allegations and do not constitute any viable ground of appeal. There is no merit in this application.

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

The Applicant acting in person