KHAN HANIF v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 264/2025, [2026] HKCA 1403

On Appeal from [2025] HKCFI 1592

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 264 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 3785 OF 2019)

________________________

_____________________

_____________________

JUDGMENT

_____________________

Hon H. Au-Yeung J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

THE APPLICATION

1.  On 19 November 2025, this Court (Chow JA and H. Au-Yeung J) handed down a judgment ([2025] HKCA 1006) (“the Judgment”) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Philips Wong dated 22 April 2025 refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review.  The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dismissing his appeal from the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting his non-refoulement claim.

2.  By a Notice of Motion filed on 2 March 2026, the applicant applied for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal by merely stating that he was not satisfied with the Judgment. In his supporting affirmation of the same date, the applicant requested for an extension of time for him to seek leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

3.  In his written submissions lodged on 16 March 2026, he repeats the procedural history of his claim for non-refoulement protection, and his alleged fear of being harmed or killed by his enemies if refouled to his home country.

4.  Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion, affirmation in support and written submissions, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on the papers.  We have, therefore, determined the applicant’s application on the basis of the aforesaid documents.

DISCUSSION

5.  Under section 24 of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484, Laws of Hong Kong) (“the Ordinance”), an application for leave to appeal shall be made by motion, and notice of a motion for this purpose shall be filed within 28 days from the date of the judgment to be appealed from.  The applicant has delayed substantially in filing the Notice of Motion, and has not given any explanation for his delay.  Although the Court has power to extend the time for the applicant to file the Notice of Motion, such power should not be exercised unless the applicant can demonstrate that his intended appeal has a real prospect of success.

6.  Section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance 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.  In the present application, the applicant has simply failed to identify any question of great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine.  Nor is any such question apparent to us from the matters which he has raised.

8.  Further, the Notice of Motion has not identified any supposed error in the Judgment.

9.  We are therefore satisfied that the applicant’s intended appeal has no merits and no reasonable prospect of success.  Neither do we see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance.

DISPOSITION

10.  For the above reasons, the matters advanced by the applicant do not constitute valid grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. 

11.  The Notice of Motion filed on 2 March 2026 is therefore dismissed.