Njie Samuel John v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 173/2026, [2026] HKCA 1795

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 736

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 173 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1210 OF 2021)

____________

____________

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

Hon G Lam JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.This is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”).  The applicant is a national of Gambia whose claim for non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong was treated as having been withdrawn, and was accordingly rejected by the Director of Immigration and by the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”).  His application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision was dismissed by the Court of First Instance.  His appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court in our judgment dated 12 May 2026.

2.By Notice of Motion filed on 26 May 2026, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA.  In that document the applicant stated that there was an error of law in this court’s decision (without specifying what it was) and that there was an unfair attitude in the assessment of his claim. 

3.In his written submissions the applicant argued that the Director of Immigration was wrong in not allowing him to re-open his application given mental health problems.

4.There is no reason for us to depart from the usual practice of determining an application for leave to appeal on the basis of the available materials without an oral hearing, as set out in paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1.

5.We take the view that this application ought to be dismissed because the applicant has not shown that the intended appeal raises any question which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the CFA for decision (which is the condition for giving leave to appeal under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484), and also because he has failed to show any prospects of success in the intended appeal.

6.Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.

The Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person