Case Document

100%

CACV 679/2025, [2026] HKCA 1730

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 3675

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 679 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 479 OF 2020)

________________________

BETWEEN

	MAHARJAN KRISHNA	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:	27 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[1], this Court dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) YW Hew dated 22 August 2025, refusing his leave to apply for judicial review in respect of his non-refoulement claim.

2.By a Notice of Motion dated 14 April 2026, the Applicant applied 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)[2] on the grounds that (sic) :

“I would like to inform court of Final Appeal. There are Same Error in my Law Maker authorities. They not properly investigation in my claim, decision Maker not give me Justice They will Make my decision same like Torture Claim appeal Board and director of Immigration. I do not Think my claim determined Fairly.”

3.In his written submissions lodged on 27 April 2026, the Applicant complained for the first time that he was not provided with legal or language assistance. He alleged 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 alleged that the authorities acted in a discriminatory manner towards non-refoulement claimants. However, the Applicant had singularly failed to raise any complaint or challenge against our judgment.

4.The matters raised by the Applicant in the Notice of Motion and the written submissions do not meet the statutory threshold for leave to be granted because they fail 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] [2026] HKCA 541

[2] 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

Maharjan Krishna v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

[2025] HKCFI 3675 · High Court CFI

22 Aug 2025

Other Judgments in This Case

Further hearings and rulings under CACV 679/2025

Maharjan Krishna v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Court of Appeal

30 Mar 2026

Maharjan Krishna v. Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office