ABDUL JABBAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CACV 520/2025, [2026] HKCA 1501

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 2769

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 520 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2691 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 is a national of Bangladesh 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 automatically dismissed as the consequence of his failure to comply with an unless order. The applicant’s summons for relief from that sanction was dismissed by this Court in our judgment dated 12 May 2026.

2.  By Notice of Motion filed on 18 May 2026, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA.  In that document the applicant stated that he does not agree with the court’s decision, that no decision-maker had scrutinised his claim properly, and that if he returned to his home country he would be killed by his enemies.  His written submissions essentially reiterated the risks he would face if he went back to his country.

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.