SUDARMANTO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 743/2025, [2026] HKCA 1445

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 4051

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 743 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2325 OF 2020) 

____________________

BETWEEN

____________________

Before :  Hon Anthony Chan JA and Ng J in Court 

Date of Judgment :  28 August 2026

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

Hon Anthony Chan JA (giving the Judgment of the Court) :

On 11 May 2026, this Court handed down a Judgment ([2026] HKCA 703) (“Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung dated 5 September 2025 striking out his application for leave to apply for judicial review.  The intended judicial review concerned the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting his non-refoulement claim.

The facts and issues in the Applicant’s appeal, as well as the Court’s reasons for dismissing it, were set out in the Judgment.  We will not repeat them here.

By a Notice of Motion filed on 15 May 2026, the Applicant applies for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”).  The Notice of Motion stated as follows :

“I would like to inform to the Court of Appeal. There are Some Error in my law maker decision. The Judgment Given by the court of First Instance and the both Respondent’s. They were totally Relied on Some web news which officially not Recognised and the Ground Reality is different then to web information available. I would like to Requesting to this Respected court to Reconsider my case.”

The Applicant has failed to lodge any submissions for the present application in breach of the Directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals dated 15 May 2026.  There is no reason for us to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of the present type on the basis of the available materials without an oral hearing in accordance with para.3 of Practice Direction 2.1.

The matters stated in the Notice of Motion do not constitute any proper ground for granting leave to appeal to the CFA.  The Applicant has not raised any question of great general or public importance for the CFA to consider, as required by s.22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484. 

We do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under s.22(1)(b).

The Notice of Motion did not identify any error in the Judgment. The matters stated in the Notice of Motion are bare assertions without any particulars and do not constitute any viable ground of appeal. There is no merit in this application. 

For these reasons, the Notice of Motion is dismissed with no order as to costs.

The Applicant acting in person