|
CACV 156/2025, [2026] HKCA 3
On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 754
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 156 OF 2025
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2614 OF 2019)
________________________
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
PAMPAG REY PACCIAL |
Applicant |
| |
and |
|
| |
TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/
NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE |
Putative
Respondent |
| |
and |
|
| |
DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION |
Putative |
| |
|
Interested Party |
_____________________
| Before: |
Hon Chow JA and Andrew Chan J in Court |
| Date of Judgment: |
5 January 2026 |
_______________
J U D G M E N T
_______________
Hon Andrew Chan J (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”). The applicant is a national of the Philippines whose 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.[1] His appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court in our judgment dated 26 September 2025.[2]
2. By Notice of Motion filed on 8 October 2025, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA. The applicant stated that he was not in agreement with the court’s decision and that he would be killed if he was to be returned back to his country.
3. In his written submissions lodged on 22 October 2025, the applicant simply reiterated certain basic legal principles in handling torture claim applications without going into details and / or specifics. The applicant stressed that he would face hardship if he was to be returned to his country and that the source of information or news relied on by the Board were hearsay and unreliable.
4. There is no reason for us to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind 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 the applicant, in our view, has failed to show any prospects of success in the intended appeal.
6. Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.
(Anderson Chow)
Justice of Appeal
|
(Andrew Chan)
Judge of the Court of
First Instance
|
The Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person
|