OMAR OUBELLA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CAMP 132/2025, [2026] HKCA 762

On An Intended Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 1379 &

[2025] HKCFI 2470

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 132 OF 2025

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1967 OF 2024)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.  On 3 April 2025, Deputy High Court Judge Reuden Lai 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 9 November 2023, whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 27 July 2023 rejecting his non-refoulement claim.

2.  On 23 February 2025, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”)  dismissing the Applicant’s summons taken out on 17 July 2025, which the Court treated as an application for an extension of time to appeal against the said order of the Judge.  The basic facts of this case and the Court’s reasons for dismissing the Applicant’s application have been set out in the CA Judgment and will not be repeated here.

3.  By a Notice of Motion dated 6 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 wished to appeal against “the decision dated 23 Feb 2026 by Hon Au and Hon Chow JJA”.

4.  The Applicant has not filed any written submissions in support of his application, contrary to the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals dated 6 March 2026.

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.