DIN SHAMAS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 484/2025, [2026] HKCA 1440

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 2882

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 484 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 704 OF 2020)

____________________

BETWEEN

____________________

Before:  Hon Anthony Chan JA and Ng J in Court 

Date of Written Submissions: 3 June 2026

Date of Judgment:  28 August 2026

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

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

On 11 May 2026, this Court handed down a Judgment ([2026] HKCA 637) (“Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-Refoulement Claims) Lewis Law dated 7 July 2025 dismissing his application for leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 14 April 2020. 

The facts and issues in the Applicant’s appeal, as well as the reasons for dismissing it, were set out in the Judgment.  We will not repeat them here.

The Applicant now applies, by a Notice of Motion filed on 21 May 2026, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”).  In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant stated that :

“I would like to inform to the Court of Appeal. There are Some Error in my law maker decision The Judgment Given by the High Court and the decision made by the both Respondent’s. The Respondent’s decision to Refuse my Appeal were Unreasonable or irrational in the Public Law Sense or are a result of owed to a Self to a Respresented claimants. I have Sever Problems in my home country. So I am Requesting for Reconsider my case.”

The Applicant’s written submissions filed on 3 June 2026 is a reproduction of the skeleton argument that he filed on 12 March 2026 in support of his appeal before this Court. These submissions have been summarised at Judgment, [5]. The same will not be repeated.  

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.

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 s.22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484.  Further, there is no basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under s.22(1)(b).

Neither the Notice of Motion nor the written submissions identified any error in the Judgment. The Applicant’s word-for-word reproduction of his skeleton argument for the appeal is unacceptable.  There is no genuine attempt to advance the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim, but an endeavour to prolong his stay in Hong Kong. It is an abuse of process of the court. There is no merit in this application.

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

The Applicant acting in person