Waqas Ur Rehman v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 408/2025, [2026] HKCA 1290

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 2076

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 408 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 138 OF 2020)

____________________

BETWEEN

____________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

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

1.By a Judgment dated 11 May 2026 (“Judgment”), this Court dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Martin Wong dated 3 June 2025 refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review in respect of his non-refoulement claims.

2.By a Notice of Motion dated 15 May 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 the Court of Appeal.  There are some Error in my law maker decision.  I am disagree with the Judgement Given by the High Court Court of First Instance and the decision made by the both Respondent’s they were totally Relied on Some web news which officially not Recognized.  Those decision makes me liable to Remove from Hong Kong to a Risk State where my life is not safe.”

3.In his written submissions lodged on 23 June 2026, which was filed outside of the time prescribed under the directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals dated 15 May 2026, the Applicant complains that he was not provided with legal or language assistance[2]. He makes general allegations against the decision of the Board (and/or the Director)[3], but advances no submission against the Judgment.

4.We consider that 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; (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 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.

[2]  Submissions, [4].

[3]  Submissions, [2], [5] and [6].