Nur Widia and Another v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 680/2025, [2026] HKCA 1444

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 3692

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 680 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2823 OF 2019)

____________________

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 699) (“Judgment”) dismissing the Applicants’ appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Levy dated 22 August 2025 refusing to grant leave to the Applicants 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 Applicants’ appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting their non-refoulement claims.

2.The facts and issues in the Applicants’ 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 19 May 2026, the Applicants apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”).  The Notice of Motion stated as follows :

“I would like to inform to Court of Appeal. There is Some Error in my law maker decision. The Judgment Given by the High Court and decision made by both Respondent’s. These decision is very unfair to me. I have Sever Problems in my home country and the authorities decision makes me liable to Remove from Hong Kong to a risk state where my life is not Safe.”

4.The Applicants have failed to lodge any submissions for the present application in breach of the Directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals dated 19 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 Applicants have 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 Applicants acting in person