MUHAMMAD QASIM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CAMP 86/2025, [2025] HKCA 1035

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 1042

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 86 OF 2025

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 93 OF 2020)

________________________

________________________

________________________

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 15 September 2025.

2.  By Notice of Motion filed on 18 September 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 and previous facts in favour of rejecting his claim, that the administrative authorities and courts ignored overwhelming evidence of violence towards minorities, and that their decision betrayed a biased and formulaic approach which was not reasonable and unfairly assessed the danger to the applicant’s life.

3.  In his written submissions, the applicant merely set out general propositions about the standards of fairness required in processing a claim for non-refoulement protection, without demonstrating how this court was wrong in its decision or what questions of law would arise in his proposed appeal.

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.