KHAROTAI HAYAT GUL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CACV 1244/2025, [2026] HKCA 1506

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 6262

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 1244 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1985 OF 2025)

________________________

________________________

_____________________

JUDGMENT

_____________________

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

1.  On 17 December 2025, Deputy High Court Judge Michael Wong made an order refusing to grant to the Applicant leave to apply for judicial review.  The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 20 August 2025, whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 30 May 2025 rejecting his non-refoulement claim.

2.  On 17 March 2026, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the order of the Judge.  The basic facts of this case and the Court’s reasons for dismissing the Applicant’s appeal have been set out in the CA Judgment and will not be repeated here.

3.  By a Notice of Motion filed on 17 March 2026, the Applicant applies for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant alleges that there are some errors in the decision-makers’ decisions, they relied on “web news which [were] officially not recognized”, and there was no proper investigation of his claim.  He also says that he does not think his case was determined fairly.

4.  In his written submissions dated 26 March 2026, the Applicant complains about the lack of legal and language assistance, and makes various general allegations against the Director and the Board.  The Applicant has failed, however, to identify any supposed error in the CA Judgment.

5.  Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, we determine the present application for leave to appeal on paper without an oral hearing.

6.  Under s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484, an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal in any civil cause or matter if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal (as the case may be), the question involved in the appeal is one which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision.

7.  The Applicant’s complaint about the lack of legal and language assistance is a new complaint that was not raised in either his original application for leave to apply for judicial review, or in his appeal.  There is no good reason to permit the Applicant to raise this complaint for the first time in the present application.  In any event, it has no merit.  It is well established that a non-refoulement claimant has no absolute entitlement to legal or language assistance at all stages of the assessment of his non-refoulement claim, or proceedings brought by him to challenge decisions made by the Director or the Board in relation to such assessment.  His other complaints are all general assertions without particulars.

8.  No question of great general or public importance involved in the intended appeal is identified in the Notice of Motion.  We are unable to see any such question being involved in the intended appeal.  The Applicant has not raised any viable ground of appeal against the CA Judgment.  We are satisfied that the intended appeal has no reasonable prospect of success.

9.  There is also no basis to grant leave to appeal on the “or otherwise” limb in s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance.

10.  Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is refused and the Notice of Motion is dismissed.