AHMED MUNIR AND OTHERS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 398/2023

[2026] HKCA 1159

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 398 OF 2023

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 825 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon S T Poon J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  On 14 November 2025, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”)  dismissing the Applicants’ appeal against the order made by Deputy High Court Judge K. W. Lung on 21 November 2023 refusing to grant leave to the Applicants to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”)  dated 1 March 2019.

2.  The Applicants now apply by Notice of Motion filed on 1 December 2025 for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the following is stated:

“I would like to reject and review the decision made by the court[.] They disregard our dangerous situation.”

3.  The Applicants belatedly lodged a 3-page written submission on 16 December 2025.  In the written submission, the 1^st Applicant for himself and on behalf of the 2^nd to 4^th Applicants repeats the basis of the Applicants’ claims for non-refoulement protection.  He complains essentially that the Board failed to properly consider the risk of harm he and his children would face if they were to return to Pakistan because state protection will not be available to them and internal relocation is not feasible.

4.  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, inter alia, the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal the question involved 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.

5.  The matters raised in the Notice of Motion and the written submission are all general and bare assertions without any specific particulars or explanation.  Clearly, they cannot be viable ground of appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

6.  No question of great general or public importance involved in the proposed appeal is identified in the Notice of Motion or the written submission.  We are unable to see any such question being involved in the proposed appeal.  There is also no basis to grant leave to appeal on the “otherwise” limb in s 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance.

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