PRADO MOISES ESTONILO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CACV 684/2025, [2026] HKCA 1119

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 3834

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 684 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 608 OF 2020)

________________________

_____________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

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

1.  On 26 August 2025, Deputy High Court Judge Michael Wong made an order refusing to grant to the Applicant leave to apply for judicial review. The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 12 March 2020, whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 21 August 2018 rejecting his non-refoulement claim.

2.  On 23 February 2026, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the order of the Judge. The basic facts of this case and the Court’s reasons for dismissing the Applicant’s appeal have been set out in the CA Judgment and will not be repeated here.

3.  By a Notice of Motion dated 16 March 2026, the Applicant applied for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant merely stated that he “would like to reject and review the decision made by the court. They disregard my dangerous situation”.

4.  In the Applicant’s written submissions filed in support of the application, the Applicant essentially repeats the basis of his non-refoulement claim without identifying any supposed error in the CA Judgment.

5.  Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, we determine the present application for leave to appeal on paper without an oral hearing.

6.  Under s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484, an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal in any civil cause or matter 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.

7.  No question of great general or public importance involved in the intended appeal is identified in the Notice of Motion. We are unable to see any such question being involved in the intended appeal. The Applicant has not identified any error in the CA Judgment, or raised any viable ground of appeal against the CA Judgment. We are satisfied that the intended appeal has no reasonable prospect of success.

8.  There is also no basis to grant leave to appeal on the “or otherwise” limb in s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance.

9.  Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is refused and the Notice of Motion is dismissed.