Case Document

100%

CACV 669/2025, [2026] HKCA 1705

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 3822

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 669 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2832 OF 2019)

________________________

BETWEEN

	MIA SUJON	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:	21 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 Levy dated 29 August 2025, refusing him leave to apply for judicial review in respect of his non-refoulement claims.

2.By a notice of motion dated 10 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 4-page written submissions, the applicant repeats the factual basis of his non-refoulement claim. He also says he disagrees with the decisions of the Director, the Board and the Judge, and makes some general allegations in respect of those decisions.

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

Mia Sujon v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

[2025] HKCFI 3822 · High Court CFI

29 Aug 2025

Other Judgments in This Case

Further hearings and rulings under CACV 669/2025

Mia Sujon v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Court of Appeal

30 Mar 2026

Mia Sujon v. Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office