Omar Nassor Juma v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 430/2025, [2026] HKCA 1442

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 2399

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 430 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 476 OF 2020)

____________________

BETWEEN

____________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

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

1.On 11 May 2026, this Court handed down a Judgment ([2026] HKCA 679) (“Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Levy dated 13 June 2025 refusing to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review.  The intended judicial review concerned the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dismissing the Applicant’s 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, were set out in the Judgment.  We will not repeat them here.

3.By a Notice of Motion filed on 18 May 2026, the Applicant applies for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”).  The Notice of Motion stated as follows :

“I am disagree with the decision maker authorities. I would like to inform to Court of Appeal. There are Some Error in my law maker. The Judgment Given by the High Court and decision made by both Respondent’s These decision makes me liable to Remove From Hong Kong to a risk state. I have Severe Problems in my home country. So I am Requesting for Reconsider my case. And do Proper investigation in my case.”

4.The Applicant has failed to lodge any submissions for the present application in breach of the Directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals dated 18 May 2026.  There is no reason for us to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of the present type on the basis of the available materials without an oral hearing in accordance with para.3 of Practice Direction 2.1.

5.The matters stated in the Notice of Motion do not constitute any proper ground for granting leave to appeal to the CFA.  The Applicant has not raised any question of great general or public importance for the CFA to consider, as required by s.22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484.

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

7.The Notice of Motion did not identify any error in the Judgment. The matters stated in the Notice of Motion are bare assertions without any particulars 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