Sadiq Touseef v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 154/2026, [2026] HKCA 1753

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 795

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 154 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 609 OF 2021)

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

_____________________

JUDGMENT

_____________________

Hon Lisa Wong J (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 Pakistan national whose claim for non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong was 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 18 May 2026, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA.  In that document, the applicant stated (1) that the decision makers did not scrutinize his claim properly; (2) that his problem is very severe in his home country; and (3) that he would be killed by his enemies if refouled. 

3.In his written submissions lodged on 29 May 2026, the applicant asserts (1) that the Board did not scrunitize his claim properly; (2) that the Board failed to give him sufficient chance to arrange relevant evidence; (3) that the Board relied on sources of news that were not officially recognized; (4) that the Board failed to assess whether state protection existed in his home country; (5) that he would be killed by his enemies if refouled; and (6) that the police and state authorities would not help him. 

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