Ayaz Aamir v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 155/2026,  [2026] HKCA 1645

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 628

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 155 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2478 OF 2020)

____________

____________

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

Hon G Lam JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.This is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”).  The applicant is a national of Pakistan whose claim for non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong was rejected by the Director of Immigration and by the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”).  His application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision was dismissed by the Court of First Instance.  His appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court in our judgment dated 12 May 2026.

2.By Notice of Motion filed on 19 May 2026, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA.  In that document the applicant stated that the decision (presumably, of this court) was unsatisfactory and unfair, and that there were legal errors, omissions and mis-reading of many things, and that the judges favoured the Board and the Director of Immigration.

3.The applicant lodged written submissions in which he criticised the decision (presumably, of this court) on various generalised grounds.

4.However, on 26 August 2026, the applicant filed a Request for Dismissal of Appeal asking for the dismissal of the appeal filed on 19 May 2026, which is clearly a reference to his application by Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the CFA.

5.There is no reason for us to depart from the usual practice of determining an application for leave to appeal on the basis of the available materials without an oral hearing, as set out in paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1.

6.Quite apart from the applicant’s own request for dismissal, this application is inevitably to be dismissed because the applicant has not shown that the proposed appeal raises any question which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the CFA for decision (which is the condition for giving leave to appeal under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484), and also because he has failed to show any prospects of success in the intended appeal.

7.Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.

The Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person