Case Document

100%

CACV 573/2025, [2026] HKCA 1703

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 3201

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 573 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 866 OF 2020)

________________________

BETWEEN

	KHAN KHURRAM SHAHZAD	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:	2 April 2026
Date of Judgment:	25 September 2026

_____________________

J U D G M E N T

_____________________

The Court :

1.By a Judgment dated 27 February 2026, this Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Lewis Law dated 28 July 2025, refusing him leave to apply for judicial review in respect of his non-refoulement claims.

2.By a Notice of Motion dated 25 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 want to inform to court of Final Appeal. There are Same Error in my Law Maker authorities. They give Totally unfair decision. There are not Properly Investigation in my case. They have same web news, which not officialy not Recognized. I do not Think my case determined Fairly.”

3.In his written submissions lodged on 2 April 2026, the applicant complains for the first time that he was not provided with legal or language assistance. He alleges generally 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.

(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

Khan Khurram Shahzad v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

[2025] HKCFI 3201 · High Court CFI

28 Jul 2025

Other Judgments in This Case

Further hearings and rulings under CACV 573/2025

Khan Khurram Shahzad v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Court of Appeal

27 Feb 2026

Khan Khurram Shahzad v. Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office