RE WASEEM

CACV 211/2025, [2026] HKCA 866

On Appeal From [2025] HKCA 1126

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 211 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 3738 OF 2019)

_______________

_______________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

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

1.  On 30 December 2025, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against this court’s judgment of 19 December 2025 (“the Judgment”) ([2025] HKCA 1126). In the Judgment, we dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Philips Wong (“the Judge”) dated 14 April 2025, by which the Judge dismissed his application for leave to apply for judicial review ([2025] HKCFI 1238).

2.  The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as this court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in the Judgment. We will not repeat them here. After reviewing the Notice of Motion, we see no reason to deviate from the usual practice to consider this application on paper pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1.

3.  Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484) (“the HKCFAO”) provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of this court or the Court of Final Appeal 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.

4.  In his Notice of Motion, the applicant stated:

“I am pleading to the court to allowed me to appeal against the decision dated on 19 December 2025 by Honourable Mr Justice Au and Honourable Mr Justice K. Yeung. The Judgement was unreasonable.” (sic)

5.  Contrary to Practice Direction 2.1, the applicant failed to lodge any written submissions.

6.  In our view, the applicant’s application is plainly devoid of merit. He has failed to advance any proper ground of appeal. His vague and bare assertion that the Judgment “was unreasonable” lacks any particulars and is unsupported by any evidence. His intended appeal is plainly a non-starter.

7.  Further and in any event, even taking them at their highest, his allegations remain fact-specific and do not relate to any question of great general or public importance.

8.  Accordingly, the applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO. We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.

9.  For these reasons, the applicant’s intended appeal has no merit. Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.