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

CACV429/2025, [2026] HKCA 1143

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 2312

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO.429 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 569 OF 2020)

____________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

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

1.  On 2 April 2026, this Court handed down a Judgment ([2026] HKCA 525) (“Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Philips Wong dated 12 June 2025 refusing to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review. The intended judicial review concerned the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) rejecting his non-refoulement claim.

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

3.  By a Notice of Motion filed on 8 April 2026, the Applicant applies for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”). The Notice of Motion states as follows :

“I am disagree with the decision maker authorities. So I would like to inform to the Court of Appeal. There are some error in my law maker decision. The decision made by the both Respondent’s. This is unfair to me and it’s make me liable to remove from Hong Kong to a risk state in my home country.”

4.  In his written submissions lodged on 22 April 2026, the Applicant submits that :

(1)     The Director and the Board reached their decisions wrongly because the decisions were not reasonable or fair;

(2)     Right to life is protected under Article 28 of the Basic Law and Article 2 of the Bill of Rights, and the Applicant faces risk of extrajudicial killing if refouled;

(3)     The Director failed to give proper weight to state acquiescence which led to an unfair outcome;

(4)     The Adjudicator acted unreasonably and with procedural unfairness by over-relying on Country of Origin Information and ignoring the Applicant’s personal background and experience;

(5)     The Director failed to take the Applicant’s arguments into account or give them sufficient weight;

(6)     The Board’s dismissal of the Applicant’s appeal was irrational and based on findings which supported the opposite outcome;

(7)     The Board’s decision was unreasonable, irrational, or the result of procedural errors or unfairness;

(8)     The Board relied on website news which were not officially recognised and there was no proper investigation of the Applicant’s claims; and

(9)     The Director and the Board did not properly investigate the Applicant’s claim and rejected it as quickly as possible.

5.  Having considered the Notice of Motion and the Applicant’s written submissions, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this type on paper.

6.  None of the matters stated in the Notice of Motion or the Applicant’s written submissions constitutes 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.

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

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