Re Jagdesh Kumar

CACV 1223/2025, [2026] HKCA 1634

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 6281

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 1223 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 2072/2020)

_______________________

_______________________

____________________

J U D G M E N T

____________________

Hon K Yeung JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.On 3 March 2026, this court (Barma JA and Keith Yeung J) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung given on 17 December 2025 refusing to grant leave for the applicant to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal 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 court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment.[1]  We will not repeat them here. 

3.The applicant subsequently applies, by a Notice of Motion filed on 17 March 2026, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. 

4.In the Notice of Motion, the applicant complains, inter alia, that “[t]here are some error in my law maker authorities”, that “[t]hey were totally relied on some web news”, that his claim has not been properly investigated, and that his case has not been determined fairly.

5.In his written submissions dated 30 March 2026, the applicant complains, inter alia, that he was not provided with “proper legal and language assistance” and thus there had been a breach of procedural fairness.  He also submits that his claim requires more analysis, and that if he is to go back to his country, he would “face death consequence”.

6.Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion and written submissions, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on the papers.  We have, therefore, determined the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents filed.

7.The matters stated by the applicant do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484.  Nor is any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised.

8.The Notice of Motion in any event does not identify any supposed error in our judgment, not to mention any ground that is reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.

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

10.For these reasons, the Notice of Motion filed on 17 March 2026 is dismissed.

The applicant acting in person