Jahidur Rahman v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 349/2025, [2026] HKCA 1693

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 1846

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 349 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 493 OF 2020)

________________________

BETWEEN

_____________________

_____________________

J U D G M E N T

_____________________

The Court :

1.By a Judgment dated 17 March 2026, this Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Philips Wong dated 22 May 2025, refusing him leave to apply for judicial review in respect of his non-refoulement claims.

2.By a Notice of Motion dated 19 March 2026, the applicant applied to us for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal under section 22(1) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484)[1] on the grounds that (sic):

“1. The learned Judges were wrong as a matter of Law for not having applied the principle of procedural unfairness to the decision of the director, whereby the director was required to give reasons justifying the decision.

2. The learned Judges were wrong as a matter of law for not having applied the principles of irrationality to the decision made by the Director of Immigration refusing my application for Judicial Review.

3. There is some error in the law in my decision. The decision-maker relied solely on COL information and my prior facts, which were used to support rejection of my claim.

4. Actual life occurs in different situation than mentioned COL information. Officers and courts prefer to ignore the overwhelming of the violence towards minorities, searching for an unrealistic silver lining.

5. The Judge did not apply the law properly, & Procedural unfairness.

6. I further want to explain that my life is in danger in my country. I would be killed or harmed if I returned back to my country.”

3.In his 10-page written submissions lodged on 31 March 2026, the applicant cited a number of cases and made essentially the same generic submissions on the general principles of law relating to non-refoulement claims as he did in the appeal, but without advancing any submissions as to how those principles apply to his case or raising any challenges against our previous Judgment.

4.The Notice of Motion does not meet the statutory threshold for leave to be granted because it fails to (a) state any error in our judgment; (b) raise any viable ground of appeal that is reasonably arguable; or (c) identify any question of great general or public importance involved in the intended appeal; and there is no basis to grant leave to appeal on the “or otherwise” limb.

5.In consequence, we refuse to grant leave and dismiss the Notice of Motion.

The applicant, unrepresented, acting in person