Arslan Ali v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 158/2026, [2026] HKCA 1942

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 740

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 158 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 486 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 Pakistani 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 26 May 2026, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA.  In that document, the applicant generally criticised the decision for relying on country of origin information that ignored the overwhelming evidence of violence and for being biased in not assessing the danger to his life, without providing any particulars.  

3.Despite having acknowledged the directions for written submissions to be lodged, the applicant has not lodged any submissions for the present application.  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.

4.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.

5.Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.

The applicant, unrepresented, acting in person