MOHAMMAD SANA ULLAH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CAMP 112/2025, [2025] HKCA 1081

On An Intended Appeal From [2024] HKCFI 2588 &

[2025] HKCFI 628

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 112 OF 2025

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 3816 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

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

1.  On 15 October 2024, Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung made an 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 11 December 2019, whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 24 September 2018 rejecting his non-refoulement claim.

2.  On 12 September 2025, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s application for an extension of time to appeal against the order of the Judge. The basic facts of this case and the Court’s reasons for dismissing the Applicant’s application have been set out in the CA Judgment and will not be repeated here.

3.  By a Notice of Motion dated 6 October 2025, the Applicant applied for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant stated that:

“There are some error in my decision. Decision maker just relied on COL information and my previous facts which were favor on reject my claims. Actual life diffrent situation the mentioned COL information. Immigration officer and Hong Kong High Court prefer to ignore the overwhelming of the evidence of the violence in Azad Kashimir in Pakistan unrealistic silverlining. The decision is totally betra bias and formula approch unlikely fairly access the danger of my life …” [sic].

4.  In his written submissions dated 13 October 2025, the Applicant makes some general assertions about the “critical situation” in Pakistan, refers to the provisions of s 37ZO of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap 115, relating to “limitation on subsequent claim”, states that he wishes to have an opportunity to tell his story to the court, and repeats that his life will be uncertain if he goes back to his home country.

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.  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.