TJHAI TET LIUNG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CAMP 223/2024, [2025] HKCA 984

On Appeal From [2024] HKCFI 1517

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 223 OF 2024

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1515 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________________

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’s 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 application for extension of time to appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court in our judgment dated 2 April 2025.

2.  By Notice of Motion filed on 12 August 2025, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA.  In that document the applicant stated that this court did not consider his summons for extension of time to appeal and that he disagreed our decision.

3.  In his written submissions lodged on 2025, the applicant in essence merely stated that high standards of fairness are applicable in the determination of non-refoulement claims and repeated that he would be killed if he returned to his country.

4.  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.

5.  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.  Further, the Notice of Motion was filed far more than 28 days after our judgment, contrary to the requirement in section 24 of the Ordinance, and the delay has not been explained.

6.  Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.

7.  The summons filed by the applicant on 8 August 2025 did not disclose any clear application and, if it was intended to be an application for leave to appeal to the CFA, was superseded by the subsequent Notice of Motion.  Accordingly, that summons is struck out.