Anees Muhammad v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 864/2025, [2026] HKCA 1800

On Appeal from [2025] HKCFI 4606

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 864 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2402 OF 2020)

________________________

BETWEEN

_____________________

_____________________

JUDGMENT

_____________________

Hon H. Au-Yeung J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

THE APPLICATION

1.On 9 February 2026, this Court handed down a judgment ([2026] HKCA 34) (“the Judgment”) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Philips Wong (“the Judge”) dated 3 October 2025 refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review.  The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dismissing his appeal from the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting his non-refoulement claim.

2.The facts and issues in the applicant’s appeal, as well as the reasons for dismissing it, were set out in the Judgment.  We will not repeat them here.

3.By a Notice of Motion filed on 5 March 2026, the applicant applied for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal by stating that:

“1. The learned Judge was wrong in law for failing to properly apply the principle of procedural unfairness when refusing leave to apply for judicial review.

2. The learned Judge was wrong in law for failing to consider whether the decision of the Director and the Board were irrational and unreasonable having regard to the evidence already before them.

3. The learned Judge failed to properly consider that the Director and the Board relied selectively on Country of Origin Information (COI) and failed to fairly assess the Applicant’s evidence.

4. The learned Judge failed to consider whether sufficient enquiry was made by the Board before finalising its decision.

5. The learned Judge failed to give sufficient reasons explaining why the Applicant’s grounds were not arguable at the leave stage.” 

4.In his supporting affirmation of the same date, the applicant requested for an extension of time to file the Notice of Motion.  The applicant has filed the Notice of Motion within 28 days from the Judgment in compliance with section 24 of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484, Laws of Hong Kong) (“the Ordinance”).  Therefore, an extension of time is not necessary.  

5.The applicant has failed to lodge any submissions for the present application in breach of the Directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals dated 5 March 2026.

6.Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion and affirmation in support, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on paper.  We have, therefore, determined the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents before the Court.

DISCUSSION

7.Section 22(1)(b) of the 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, from any judgment of the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter, whether final or interlocutory, 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.

8.In the present application, the applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine.  Nor is any such question apparent to us from the matters which he has raised.

9.Further, the Notice of Motion has not identified any error in the Judgment.  Instead, the alleged failures appear to be directed at the Judge.  

10.We are therefore satisfied that this application has no merits.  Neither do we see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance.

DISPOSITION

11.For the above reasons, the matters advanced by the applicant do not constitute valid grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. 

12.The Notice of Motion filed on 5 March 2026 is therefore dismissed with no order as to costs.

The applicant, acting in person