Muhammad Naseem Baig v. Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
|
CACV 383/2025, [2026] HKCA 1694 On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 2201 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO. 383 OF 2025 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 518 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 29 May 2025, refusing him leave to apply for judicial review in respect of his non-refoulement claims. 2.By a Notice of Motion dated 31 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 ground that (sic):
3.The applicant lodged his written submissions on 14 April 2026, which is identical to his written submissions previously submitted in his appeal. Essentially, he complains again that he was not provided with legal or language assistance, that the Board unlawfully fettered its discretion, acted in a procedurally unfair manner and failed to meet the greater care and duty owed to self-represented claimants, and that its decision was unreasonable or irrational in the public law sense and was a result of procedural errors. He also alleges that the authorities acted in a discriminatory manner towards non-refoulement claimants. Significantly, the applicant did not indicate any complaint or raise 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 [1] Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal in any civil cause or matter if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, as the case may be, 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. |
Summaries and metadata are generated from the judgment. Report an error
Cases cited in this judgment