RE HAIDER HASNAIN

CACV 220/2025, [2026] HKCA 240

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 1239

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 220 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 3739 OF 2019)

___________________________

___________________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

Hon K Yeung J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  On 13 November 2025, this court (Chu VP and K Yeung J) handed down our judgment ([2025] HKCA 1013) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Philips Wong dated 14 April 2025 refusing leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “Board”) dismissing his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (the “Director”) rejecting his non-refoulement claim.

2.  The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, have been set out in our judgment. We will not repeat them here.

3.  On 18 November 2025, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant stated in the Notice of Motion that [sic]:

“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.  On 1 December 2025, the applicant lodged written submissions in support of the application.

5.  Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion and written submissions, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on the papers. We have, therefore, determined the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents filed.

6.  In the written submissions, the applicant first complains about the immigration officer in charge of his case, then in turn challenges the Director and the Board’s decisions. He also cites Ubamaka[1] [172]-[174] on the proof of BOR 3 risk, and alleges that his case involves torture, BOR 2, BOR 3 and persecution risks.

7.  We are of the view that the applicant’s application lacks merits. He has not engaged our reasons for dismissing his appeal (see [11]-[12] of our judgment). Nor has he identified any error therein. There is no room for him to seek to reopen issues that have already been carefully considered. In any event, the applicant has only put forward his personal circumstances as the basis for his application. He has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484. We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

10.  For the above reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 18 November 2025 is dismissed.