KC AMAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 257/2025, [2026] HKCA 1144

On Appeal from [2025] HKCFI 1707

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 257 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 3571 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

Hon Cheng J (giving the Decision of the Court):

1.  This is the applicant’s Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal handed down on 6 November 2025 ([2025] HKCA 969)  whereby the applicant’s appeal was dismissed.

2.  Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, the Registrar of Civil Appeals directed that the notice of motion is to be determined on the papers without an oral hearing. The applicant lodged his written submissions on 20 November 2025. Having considered the written submissions and the papers, we agree that it is appropriate to determine this application on paper and proceed to do so.

Grounds of Appeal

3.  The applicant stated the following grounds in his notice of motion and written submissions:

(1)  there are some errors in the lawmaker authorities. They totally relied on some web news which was not officially recognised;

(2)  his case was not determined faster or fairly;

(3)  he was not provided with proper legal and language assistance;

(4)  the respondent was in breach of procedural fairness in refusing the appeal on the grounds that the requirements were not satisfied and the adjudicator acted in a procedurally unfair manner in dealing with the appeal;

(5)  the respondent’s decision in refusing the appeal was unreasonable or irrational in public law sense or was a result of procedural error or unfairness;

(6)  the respondent failed to meet the greater care and duty owed to a self-represented claimant;

(7)  the discriminatory act of the authorities towards non-refoulement claimant is unacceptable and is detrimental to the spirit of the judicial system.

Analysis and Disposition

4.  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.

5.  The services of an interpreter were provided at the hearing at the Court of First Instance. The high standard of fairness required by law does not entail an interpretation service being made available to an applicant at all times as he may desire: Re Gurung Sagar [2019] HKCA 658.  We note that the hearing before the Board was conducted in English and that the applicant elected not to have an interpreter at the time.[1]  Furthermore, the applicant’s notice of appeal, notice of motion and written submissions were written in English. These indicate that the applicant is himself conversant with the English language and/or he has access to language assistance of his own if needed. 

6.  As for the ground relating to the lack of legal representation, the Court of Appeal has repeatedly stated that an applicant for non-refoulement does not have an absolute right to free legal representation at all stages of the proceedings[2].  The applicant already had the benefit of legal representation in presenting his case to the Director.  

7.  The rest of the applicant’s grounds are just bare assertions without any reference to the circumstances of his case.

8.  The applicant has not identified 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).

9.  For the above reasons, we dismiss the Notice of Motion filed on 11 November 2025.