BabelCite

Vodounon Setondji Nestor v. Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Case No.CACV 437/2025[2026] HKCA 1698
Court
Court of Appeal
Date25 Sep 2026
Judge—
Case Document
100%

CACV 437/2025, [2026] HKCA 1698

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 2458

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 437 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 3730 OF 2019)

________________________

BETWEEN

  VODOUNON SETONDJI NESTOR Applicant
  and  
  TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/
NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE		 Putative
Respondent
  and  
  DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION Putative
    Interested Party

_____________________

Before: Hon Poon CJHC and Ng J in Court
Date of Written Submissions: 9 April 2026
Date of Judgment: 25 September 2026

_____________________

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 10 June 2025, refusing him leave to apply for judicial review in respect of his non-refoulement claims.

2.By a notice of motion dated 30 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):

“I would draw the attention of court of final appeal over the decisions of court of appeal, Torture Claims appeal Board and the Director of Immigration as there are errors of law, procedural unfairness and unreasonable attitude in all the decisions. My life is still in danger. I want Justice. Please grant me a Judicial Review.”

3.In his 7-page written submissions, the applicant repeats the factual basis of his non-refoulement claim. He also makes some general allegations in respect of the decisions of the Director and the Board.

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.

(Jeremy Poon)
Chief Judge of the
High Court 		(Peter Ng)
Judge of the Court of
First Instance

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

Cites 1 case

Cases cited in this judgment

Vodounon Setondji Nestor v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
[2025] HKCFI 2458 · High Court CFI
10 Jun 2025