RE KANTE YAYA

CACV 230/2025 [2026] HKCA 1067

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 1398

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 230 OF 2025

(ON AN APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 83 OF 2020)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Chu VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  By our judgment handed down on 13 November 2025 ([2025] HKCA 987), this court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Michael Wong given on 10 April 2025 dismissing his application for leave to apply for judicial review.

2.  On 26 November 2025, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal this court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant also lodged a written submission to support the application.

3.  Having considered the Notice of Motion and written submission, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on paper without an oral hearing.  We have therefore proceeded to determine the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents in the case.

4.  The background to this case and the applicant’s claim have been set out in our Reasons for Judgment. We will not repeat them.

5.  Section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484 provides that leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal may be granted if 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.

6.  The grounds for the application as appeared by the Notice of Motion state that: (1)  there are errors of law in that the country-of-origin information (“COI”)  used to decide the applicant’s claim was based on news and information from the internet; and (2)  the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”)  did not properly assess the issue of state protection when the applicant’s life is in danger.  

7.  In his written submission, the applicant reiterated the factual basis of his claim and his fear that Uncle Mohamed would continue to pursue him and would kill him.  He also complained that the decisions of the Director of Immigration and the Board were based on internet materials without regard to his personal experience.  He further asserted that he could not return to Guinea as it is now ruled by military dictatorship; nor can he return to Nigeria as the government is insisting the people should convert to the Muslim faith.

8.  All the matters put forward by the applicant do not provide any viable grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  First, and critically, no question of great general and public importance has been identified, as required by section 22(1)  (b)  of the Ordinance.  Second, the grounds in the Notice of Motion were general, vague and unparticularised assertions, and do not engage with the reasons for the dismissal of his appeal. Third, similarly the written submission does not engage with our reasons for dismissing the appeal.  Fourth, for the reasons given in [24(4)] of our Reasons for Judgment, the complaint on the use of COI is unarguable.   

9.  We also do not see any basis for the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)  (b). 

10.  As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.