RANA MD SHOHEL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CAMP 236/2024, [2025] HKCA 1017

On Appeal From [2024] HKCFI 2517

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 236 OF 2024

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 552 OF 2023)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon G Lam JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”). The applicant’s claim for non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong was rejected by the Director of Immigration and by the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”). His application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision was dismissed by the Court of First Instance. His application for extension of time to appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court in our judgment dated 19 March 2025.

2.  By Notice of Motion filed on 17 June 2025, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA.  In that document the applicant stated that he did not agree with the court’s decision because the situation in his home country was unstable and dangerous for him due to political unrest.

3.  In his written submissions, the applicant stated he would be killed if he went back to his home country.  He also included broad statements about how the Board and the judge(s)  were wrong in their decisions but they were mere assertions without particulars or substance.

4.  There is no reason for us to depart from the usual practice of determining an application for leave to appeal on the basis of the available materials without an oral hearing, as set out in paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1.

5.  We take the view that this application ought to be dismissed because the applicant has not shown that the intended appeal raises any question which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the CFA for decision (which is the condition for giving leave to appeal under section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484), and also because he has failed to show any prospects of success in the intended appeal.  Further, the Notice of Motion was filed more than 28 days after our judgment, contrary to the requirement in section 24 of the Ordinance, and the delay has not been explained.

6.  Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.