RE MD SOAVE

CACV 1190/2025, [2026] HKCA 1720

On Appeal from [2026] HKCA 136

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 1190 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2123 OF 2020)

________________________

________________________

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

Hon Leung J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  On 23 February 2026, this Court handed down judgment ([2026] HKCA 136) (“the Judgment”) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Michael Wong dated 2 December 2025 ([2025] HKCFI 5853) whereby the Judge refused to grant leave for the applicant to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board concerning his non-refoulement claim.

2.  On 26 February 2026, the applicant filed a notice of motion for leave to appeal against the Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.

3.  Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, the Registrar of Civil Appeals directed the notice of motion may be determined on paper without an oral hearing. The applicant lodged his written submissions on 9 March 2026. Having considered the notice and the written submissions, we consider that it is appropriate to determine this application on paper and proceed to do so.

Grounds of Appeal

4.  In the notice of motion, the applicant stated:

“I would like to inform the Honourable Court that there is some error in law in my decision. Decision maker just relied on COI Information and my previous facts which were in favor while rejecting my claim. Actual life occur different situation then what is mentioned in COI Information. The Officer and court prefers to ignore the overwhelming of the evidence of this violence towards minorities searching for unrealistic silver lining. The Decision is betray a bias and formula approach unlikely fairly access the danger of my life and clearly not reasonable.”

5.  In his written submissions, the applicant repeated his background. He rehearsed various international covenants, the Basic Law and the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap 383 as well as established legal principles under the case law. His 2 grounds of appeal contained references of similar nature.

Discussion

6.  Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484) provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, from any judgment of the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter, whether final or interlocutory, 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.  The applicant failed to set out any actual ground for his intended appeal to the Court of Final Appeal in the notice of motion and his submissions. He did not identify and particularise any mistake in the Judgment. Nor did he identify any question of great general or public importance which ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for determination in accordance with section 22(1)(b). There is also no basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).

8.  For the above reasons, we dismiss the notice of motion.