Bapari Mohammad Khokan v. Torture Claims Appeal Board

CACV 998/2025, [2026] HKCA 1570

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 5187

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 998 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 3532 OF 2019)

____________________

BETWEEN

____________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

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

1.On 19 May 2026, this Court handed down a Judgment ([2026] HKCA 906) (“Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Michael Wong (“Judge”) dated 31 October 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 (“Board”) 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 May 2026, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”).  In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant stated that :

“Dear Sir/Madam,

With due respect and humble request to review my appeal and the claim, because I do not agree with the decision of the Court and the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board. The all the decisions are made by the decision makers simply. No decision makers did scrutinize my claim properly. My problem is very severe in my home country and if I return there I will be killed by my enemies.”

4.In his written submissions lodged on 2 June 2026, the Applicant set out numerous general and unparticularised allegations of deficiencies in the decisions of the Director of Immigration, the Board and the Judge (such as irrationality, procedural unfairness and the allegation that “the learned Judge reviewed the matter lightly”) and general statements of facing hardship, risk of attack and being killed and fear of being tortured if he is refouled.

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 has properly identified any error in the Judgment.  General assertions of fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: see Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].  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