ISLAM JOHIRUL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CACV 2/2025, [2025] HKCA 891

On Appeal from [2024] HKCFI 3605

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 2 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 3649 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Hon Chow JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  On 24 December 2024, Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan made an order (“the Order”) refusing to grant to the Applicant leave to apply for judicial review. The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 29 November 2019, whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 20 December 2018 rejecting his non-refoulement claim.

2.  On 24 June 2025, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the Order of the Judge. The basic facts of this case and the Court’s reasons for dismissing the Applicant’s appeal have been set out in the CA Judgment and will not be repeated here.

3.  By a Notice of Motion dated 3 July 2025, the Applicant applies for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant alleges, inter alia, that (i) the judges were wrong as a matter of law for not having applied the principle of irrationality and/or did not apply the law properly, (ii) there is “some error of law in [his] decision”, and (iii) the decision-makers just relied on “COL information and … previous facts, which were in favour of rejecting [his] claim”, and “prefer to ignore the overwhelming evidence of violence towards minorities, searching for unrealistic silver linings”. In his supporting affirmation of the same date, the Applicant says that he understands there is a good ground of appeal that was not necessarily considered at the stage of applying for leave to apply for judicial review, but fails to identify what that ground may be.

4.  In his written submissions dated 17 July 2025, the Applicant refers to some general principles of law relating to assessment of non-refoulement claims, but fails to explain how those principles are applicable to his situation.

5.  Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, we determine the present application for leave to appeal on paper without an oral hearing.

6.  Under s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484, an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal in any civil cause or matter if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal (as the case may be), 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.

7.  The Applicant’s complaints are general allegations without particulars. No question of great general or public importance involved in the intended appeal is identified in the Notice of Motion. We are unable to see any such question being involved in the intended appeal. The Applicant has not identified any error in the CA Judgment, or raised any viable ground of appeal against the CA Judgment. We are satisfied that the intended appeal has no reasonable prospect of success.

8.  There is also no basis to grant leave to appeal on the “or otherwise” limb in s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance.

9.  Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is refused and the Notice of Motion is dismissed.