Ahmed Tabraiz v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 167/2026, [2026] HKCA 1944

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 1017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 167 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 273 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 21 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 in his home country was very severe, (3) that he would be killed if refouled, and (4) that his life is in danger in his home country. 

3.The applicant lodged written submissions which were received by the court on 3 June 2026.  Those submissions merely repeated his general criticisms of the decisions below and his allegations concerning the harm he would face upon repatriation to his home country, without demonstrating their relevance to the present application. 

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