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

CACV 39/2025, [2025] HKCA 1083

On Appeal from [2025] HKCA 669

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 39 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2376 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 Pakistani national whose claim for non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong was rejected by the Director of Immigration. He appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) but subsequently sought to withdraw his appeal, and the Board acceded to the withdrawal . The applicant subsequently sought to re-open his case, but this was rejected by the 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 2 September 2025, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA.  In that document, the applicant stated that he had submitted his supporting document in time but his claim was dismissed by the authorities and that he and his family really have a problem in his country.       

3.  In his written submissions lodged on 11 September 2025, the applicant asserts that he and his family have problems in their country as evidenced by his supporting document.  He also states that he has a “wife”, and a “son” who has heart disease, in Hong Kong. 

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.