AZIZ SHAFQAT v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 152/2025, [2025] HKCA 1057

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 736

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 152 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2571 OF 2019)

________________________

_____________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Hon Chow JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  On 18 March 2025, Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung made an order refusing to grant to the Applicant leave to apply for judicial review. The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 22 August 2019, whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decisions of the Director of Immigration dated 26 August 2016 and 28 July 2017 rejecting his non-refoulement claim.

2.  On 26 September 2025, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the order of the Judge. The basic facts of this case and the Court’s reasons for dismissing the Applicant’s appeal have been set out in the CA Judgment and will not be repeated here.

3.  By a Notice of Motion dated 2 October 2025, the Applicant applied for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant stated the following:

“1. The learned Judges were wrong as a matter of law for not having applied the principle of irrationality to the decision made by the Director of Immigration refusing my application for Judicial Review.

2. There is some error of law in my decision. The decision maker just relied on COL information and my previous facts, which were favour on rejecting my claim.

3. Actual life occurs in different situations than COL Information. Officers and courts prefer to ignore the overwhelming evidence of violence towards minorities, searching for unrealistic silver linings.

4. The Judge did not apply the law properly.” [sic]

4.  In Applicant’s written submissions dated 15 October 2025 lodged in support of his application, the Applicant sets out some general principles of law relating to assessment of non-refoulement claims, but fails to explain how those principles are relevant to his case.

5.  Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, we determine the present application for leave to appeal on paper without an oral hearing.

6.  Under s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484, an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal in any civil cause or matter 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.  No question of great general or public importance involved in the intended appeal is identified in the Notice of Motion. We are unable to see any such question being involved in the intended appeal. The Applicant has not identified any error in the CA Judgment, or raised any viable ground of appeal against the CA Judgment. We are satisfied that the intended appeal has no reasonable prospect of success.

8.  There is also no basis to grant leave to appeal on the “or otherwise” limb in s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance.

9.  Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is refused and the Notice of Motion is dismissed.