Case Document

100%

CACV 441/2025, [2026] HKCA 1700

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 2586

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 441 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2983 OF 2019)

________________________

BETWEEN

	VILLAJIN RODELIO BAYONETO	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:	20 April 2026
Date of Judgment:	25 September 2026

_____________________

J U D G M E N T

_____________________

The Court:

1.By a Judgment dated 30 March 2026, this Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge To dated 19 June 2025, refusing him leave to apply for judicial review in respect of his non-refoulement claims.

2.By a Notice of Motion dated 9 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):

“I would like to infomr the Honourable Court that there is some error in law in my decision. Decision maker just relied on COL Information and my previous facts which were in favor while rejecting my claim. Acual life occur different situation then what is mentioned in COL Information. The Officer and cours prefers to ignore the overwheming of the evidence of this violence towards minorities searching for unrealistic silver lining. The Decision is betrary a bias and formula approach unlikely fairly access the danger of my life and clearly not reasonable.”

3.In his 10-page written submissions lodged on 20 April 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 CA 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.

(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

Villajin Rodelio Bayoneto v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

[2025] HKCFI 2586 · High Court CFI

19 Jun 2025

Other Judgments in This Case

Further hearings and rulings under CACV 441/2025

Villajin Rodelio Bayoneto V.Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Court of Appeal

30 Mar 2026

Villajin Rodelio Bayoneto v. Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office