MALIK MUHAMMAD SAQIB v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 262/2025, [2026] HKCA 595

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 1588

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 262 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 3789 OF 2019)

____________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

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

1.  On 9 February 2026, this Court (Anthony Chan JA and H. Au-Yeung J) handed down a Judgment (“Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Philips Wong given on 22 April 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 dismissing his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting his non‑refoulement claim.

2.  The facts and issues in the Applicant’s appeal, as well as the Court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in the Judgment[1].  We will not repeat them here. 

3.  The Applicant subsequently applied, by a Notice of Motion dated 11 February 2026, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant stated that:

“I would like to inform to Court of Final Appeal. There were some error in law maker authorities. They were totally relied on some web news which officially not recognised. Decision maker not give me justice. I don’t think my claim determined fairly.”

4.  In his written submission lodged on 24 February 2026, the Applicant reiterated the ground in the Notice of Motion.  He further submits that:

(1)     There was no legal and language assistance provided to him;

(2)     The Board was in breach of procedural fairness;

(3)     The authorities acted discriminatorily towards him; and

(4)     The decision makers did not properly investigate his case.

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

6.  The matters stated by the Applicant do not constitute proper 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 fails to identify any error in the Judgment and the matters stated therein raise no ground that is reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.

8.  Also, we 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 is dismissed with no order as to costs.

[1] See [2026] HKCA 36.