NAEEM KASHIF v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER

CACV 289/2022

[2025] HKCA 611

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 289 OF 2022

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 65 OF 2019)

_____________________

_____________________

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

Hon S T Poon J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  On 6 February 2023, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against this Court’s judgment of 6 February 2023 (“the Judgment”) ([2023] HKCA 115). In the Judgment, we dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan dated 15 July 2022, refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review ([2022] HKCFI 2157).

2.  The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as this Court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in the Judgment. We will not repeat them here. After reviewing the Notice of Motion, we see no reason to deviate from the usual practice to consider this application on paper pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1.

3.  Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484 (“the HKCFAO”) provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of this Court or the Court of Final Appeal if 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.

4.  In his Notice of Motion, the applicant stated:

“DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD DISMISSED MY NONREFOULEMENT CLAIM. THE HIGH COURT AND THE COURT OF APPEAL DISMISSED MY LEAVE TO APPLY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW. ALL THIS JUDGEMENTS ARE NOT GOOD FOR ME. I WANT TO GO TO C.F.A..” (sic)

5.  Contrary to Practice Direction 2.1, the applicant did not lodge any written submissions.

6.  In our view, his application is wholly without substance. In the Notice of Motion, the applicant only stated the procedural history of his non-refoulement claim and that he disagreed with the decisions made against him but failed to provide any substantive ground of intended appeal. More importantly, he did not identify any specific error in the Judgment with sufficient particulars. Accordingly, the applicant’s intended appeal is a non-starter and plainly has no merit.

7.  Further, even taking his case at its highest, his allegations are fact‑specific and do not relate to any question of great general or public importance.

8.  Accordingly, the applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO. We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.

9.  For these reasons, we dismiss the Notice of Motion.