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

CACV 66/2025, [2025] HKCA 1086

On Appeal from [2025] HKCA 672

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 66 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2353 OF 2019)

____________________

____________________

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

Hon Cheng J (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 Bangladsehi national 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 dismissed by this Court in our judgment dated 27 August 2025.

2.  By Notice of Motion filed on 8 September 2025, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA.  In that document the applicant stated that the Board erred by relying on country of origin information when “actual life” was a different situation, by ignoring the overwhelming evidence of violence towards minorities, and by assessing the danger in his life unfairly and unreasonably.  

3.  The applicant lodged written submissions which were received by the court on 19 September 2025.  Those submissions merely assert various legal principles pertaining to standard of fairness, Wednesbury unreasonableness and late filing of the notice of appeal to the Board without indicating how they applied to the applicant’s own case. 

4.  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.

5.  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.

6.  Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.