Re Boye Malick

CACV 1181/2025, [2026] HKCA 1903

On Appeal From [2026] HKCA 281

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 1181 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1938 OF 2020)

_______________

_______________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Hon Au JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.On 2 March 2026, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against this court’s judgment of 23 February 2026 (“the Judgment”) ([2026] HKCA 281).  In the Judgment, we dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung (“the Judge”) dated 2 December 2025, by which the Judge refused his application for leave to apply for judicial review ([2025] HKCFI 5789).

2.The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as this court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in the Judgment.  We will not repeat them here.  After reviewing the Notice of Motion, we see no reason to deviate from the usual practice to consider this application on paper pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1.

3.Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484) (“the HKCFAO”) provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of this court or the Court of Final Appeal if 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.

4.In his Notice of Motion, the applicant stated:

“I want to appeal against the decision dated on 23 February 2026 by Hon Mr. Justice Au and Honourable Mrs. Justice Leung.  Please give me change to appeal at supreme court.” (sic)

5.Pursuant to Practice Direction 2.1, the applicant lodged written submissions in support of his present application on 16 March 2026.  In those submissions, he merely repeated the factual and procedural background of his non-refoulement claim and claimed that he could not go back home because his life would still be at risk.

6.In our view, the applicant’s application is plainly devoid of merit.  His assertions are all vague, bare and unsupported by any particulars or evidence.  General assertions of fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].  More importantly, he has failed to specifically point out any error in the Judgment.  His assertions are not valid grounds of appeal and his intended appeal is plainly a nonstarter.

7.Further and in any event, even taking them at their highest, his allegations remain fact-specific and do not relate to any question of great general or public importance.

8.Accordingly, the applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.

9.For these reasons, the applicant’s intended appeal has no merit and we dismiss the Notice of Motion.

The applicant acting in person