KHURAM SHAHZAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 255/2025, [2026] HKCA 613

On Appeal from [2025] HKCA 964

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 255 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2601 OF 2019)

________________________

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

Hon Cheng J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is the applicant’s Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal handed down on 6 November 2025 ([2025] HKCA 964). The Court of Appeal rejected the appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung dated 22 April 2025 refusing to grant leave for the applicant to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board concerning his non-refoulement claim.

2.  Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, the Registrar of Civil Appeals directed that the notice of motion is to be determined on paper without an oral hearing. The applicant lodged his written submissions on 1 December 2025. Having considered the written submissions and the papers, we consider that it is appropriate to determine this application on paper and proceed to do so.

Grounds of Appeal

3.  The applicant stated the following as his grounds of appeal in the Notice of Motion:

“I would like to inform the Honourable Court that there is some error in law in my decision. Decision maker just relied on COI Information and my previous facts which were in favour while rejecting my claim. Actual life occur different situation then what is mentioned in COI Information. The Officer and court prefers to ignore the overwhelming of the evidence of this violence towards minorities searching for unrealistic silver lining. The Decision is betray a bias and formula approach unlikely fairly access the danger of my life and clearly not reasonable.”

4.  His written submissions were largely identical to those previously submitted to this court for the hearing of his appeal.

Analysis and Disposition

5.  Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484) provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, from any judgment of the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter, whether final or interlocutory, 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.

6.  The applicant’s grounds and submissions are just bare assertions without reliable evidence in support. In any event, he did not identify any particular mistakes in our decision, nor did he identify any question of great general or public importance which ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for determination in accordance with section 22(1)(b). There is also no basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).

7.  For the above reasons, we dismiss the Notice of Motion filed on 17 November 2025.