Re Alam Chiddique Mohammad Nur

CACV 54/2026 [2026] HKCA 1653

On appeal from [2026] HKCA 486

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 54 OF 2026

(ON AN APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1192 OF 2021)

_____________________

_____________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

Hon Cheng J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.By our judgment handed down on 13 April 2026 ([2026] HKCA 486), we dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-Refoulement Claims) Lewis Law given on 16 January 2026 dismissing his application for leave to apply for judicial review.

2.On 16 April 2026, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal against the court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant also lodged written submissions to support the application.

3.Having considered the Notice of Motion and written submissions, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on paper without an oral hearing.  We have therefore proceeded to determine the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents in the case.

4.The background to this case and the applicant’s claim have been set out in our judgment. We will not repeat them.

5.Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484 provides that leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal may be granted if the question involved in the appeal is one which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision.

6.The grounds for the application in the Notice of Motion state that there is an error in the law-maker’s decision and that the applicant’s claim was not properly investigated and was determined unfairly. 

7.In his written submissions, the applicant complained about procedural unfairness as he was never provided with legal or language assistance and that the decisions of the Director of Immigration and the Torture Claims Appeal Board were reached unfairly. He reiterated that the problems in his country were severe and he will face death upon his return.

8.The matters put forward by the applicant do not provide any viable grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. First, no question of great general and public importance has been identified, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance. Second, the grounds in the Notice of Motion are general, vague and unparticularised assertions, and do not engage with our reasons for dismissing his appeal (see [7]-[11] of our judgment), nor identify any error therein. Third, the written submissions similarly merely repeated the applicant’s complaints about the rejection of his claim and do not engage with our reasons for dismissing the appeal.

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

10.As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.

The applicant, unrepresented, acting in person.