ISLAM MD SHOHIDUL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 549/2025, [2026] HKCA 1303

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 2514

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 549 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 3027 OF 2019)

____________________

____________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

Hon Anthony Chan JA (giving the Judgment of the Court) :

1.  On 2 April 2026, this Court handed down a Judgment (“Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung (“Judge”) dated 25 July 2025 refusing leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review. The Applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) dismissing his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) rejecting his non-refoulement claim.

2.  The facts and issues in the Applicant’s appeal, as well as the reasons for dismissing it, are set out in the Judgment ([2026] HKCA 524).  We will not repeat them here.

3.  The Applicant now applies, by a Notice of Motion filed on 27 April 2026, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”). In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant stated that :

“With due respect and humble request to review my appeal and the claim, because I do not agree with the decision of the court and the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board. The all the decisions are made by the decision maker simply. No decision makers did scrutinize my claim properly. My problem is very severe in my home country and if I return there I will be killed by my enemies.”

4.  In his written submissions lodged on 11 May 2026, the Applicant reiterated the contents of the Notice of Motion and made numerous unparticularised allegations of deficiencies against the decisions of the Director, the Board and the Judge.  With respect, such allegations are little more than template complaints widely used in cases of the present type, eg, the decision-makers did not apply the high standard of fairness and source of news not officially recognised was relied upon.  Allegations of this kind simply do not advance the Applicant’s case, least of all support an application for leave to appeal to the CFA. 

5.  Having considered the Notice of Motion and written submissions, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this type on paper.

6.  The matters raised by the Applicant do not constitute proper grounds for granting leave to appeal to the CFA.  He has not raised any question of great general or public importance for the CFA to consider, as required under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484.  Nor is any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised.  Further, there is no basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

7.  Neither the Notice of Motion, nor the written submissions identifies any error in the Judgment.  There is no merit in this application.

8.  For these reasons, the Notice of Motion is dismissed with no order as to costs.