RE SHAKEEL

CAMP 180/2023, [2026] HKCA 901

On appeal from [2023] HKCFI 90

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 180 OF 2023

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 178/2019)

-----------------------------------

-----------------------------------

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

Hon Barma JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  On 30 May 2025, this court (Barma JA and Au JA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of DHCJ KW Lung dated 13 January 2023 refusing to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dismissing his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting his non‑refoulement claim based on the BOR 2 risk.

2.  The facts and issues in the applicant’s application, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment.[1]  We will not repeat them here.

3.  The applicant subsequently applied, by a Notice of Motion filed on 2 June 2025 (which was refiled on 7 July 2025 pursuant to the directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals), for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the applicant stated, inter alia, that “the decision” ignored “the overwhelming of the evidence”, without regard to his life, and was calculated “to reject [his] claims”.  The applicant further urged this court to consider his “real situation”.

4.  The applicant, in his written submissions lodged on 10 June 2025, repeated his complaints against the decision of the Board, and that it did not “meet the necessary high standards of fairness and/or was … unlawful”.

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.  The matters stated by the applicant do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant 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.  Nor is any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised.

7.  The Notice of Motion failed to provide any particulars in the supposed errors in our judgment and it raises no ground that is reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.

8.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

9.  For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 7 July 2025 is dismissed.