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

CAMP 111/2024, [2025] HKCA 588

On Appeal From [2024] HKCFI 480

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 111 OF 2024

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1641 OF 2021)

____________

BETWEEN

____________

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

Hon G Lam JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”). The applicant’s 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 application for extension of time to appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court in our judgment dated 9 April 2025.

2.  By Notice of Motion filed on 24 April 2025, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA. In that document the applicant stated that there was some error of law in the decision, that the decision maker just relied on country of origin information but the actual situation was different, that overwhelming evidence of violence towards minorities had been ignored, and that the decision betrayed a biased and formulaic approach and was clearly not reasonable.

3.  The applicant’s written submissions lodged on 6 May 2025 simply set out passages from various court decisions and the provisions in section 37ZT of the Immigration Ordinance, without explaining how they are relevant or applicable to his 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.