Case Document

100%

CACV 438/2025, [2026] HKCA 1699

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 2357

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 438 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 265 OF 2020)

________________________

BETWEEN

	SHAH MIR ALAM	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:	4 May 2026
Date of Judgment:	25 September 2026

_____________________

J U D G M E N T

_____________________

The Court :

1.By a Judgment dated 16 April 2026, this Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Levy dated 13 June 2025, refusing him leave to apply for judicial review in respect of his non-refoulement claims.

2.By a Notice of Motion dated 20 April 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):

“With due respect and humble request to review my appeal and the claim because I do not agree with the decision of the court and the decision of the Torture claims Appeal Board. The all the decisions are made by the decision maker simply. No decision makers did scrutinize my claim properly. My problem is very severe in my home country and if I return there I will be killed by my enemies.”

3.In his written submissions lodged on 4 May 2026, the applicant contends that the Judge was wrong as a matter of law for not applying procedural fairness because neither the Board’s nor the Director’s decision scrutinized his claim properly, that the Board’s decision was irrational because it relied on the source of news which is not officially recognized, and that he is still in danger if returned to his home country because he will not be protected in his home country, but without advancing any submissions or raising any challenges against our previous Judgment. The Applicant also attached copies of medical appointment of who appears to be his wife but he did not give any explanation or make any reference to those documents in his written submissions.

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

Shah Mir Alam v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

[2025] HKCFI 2357 · High Court CFI

13 Jun 2025

Other Judgments in This Case

Further hearings and rulings under CACV 438/2025

Shah Mir Alam v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Court of Appeal

16 Apr 2026

Shah Mir Alam v. Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office