GURDEV SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 958/2025, [2026] HKCA 1174

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 4885

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 958 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2224 OF 2020)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon G Lam JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”). The applicant is an Indian national whose claim for non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong was rejected by the Director of Immigration and by the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”). His application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision was dismissed by the Court of First Instance. His appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court in our judgment dated 13 February 2026.

2.  By Notice of Motion filed on 24 February 2026, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA.  In that document the applicant stated that he disagreed with the Board’s and the court’s decisions which he described as unreasonable, and that if he returned to his home country he would be killed by his enemies.  In his written submissions he claimed that the courts had reviewed the matter lightly and failed to apply the “principle of irrationality” and “principle of procedural unfairness”.  He also repeated the basis of his claim for non-refoulement protection.

3.  There is no reason for us to depart from the usual practice of determining an application for leave to appeal on the basis of the available materials without an oral hearing, as set out in paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1.

4.  We take the view that this application ought to be dismissed because the applicant has not shown that the intended appeal raises any question which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the CFA for decision (which is the condition for giving leave to appeal under section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484), and also because he has failed to show any prospects of success in the intended appeal.

5.  Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.