SOHEL MOHAMMED v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
HTML content
CACV 234/2022
[2025] HKCA 609
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 234 OF 2022
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1046 OF 2019)
________________________
BETWEEN | ||
| SOHEL MOHAMMED | 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 S T Poon J in Court |
| Date of Judgment: | 26 September 2025 |
_________________
J U D G M E N T
_________________
Hon S T Poon J (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. On 10 October 2022, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the order made by Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung on 30 May 2022 refusing to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office/Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dated 8 April 2019.
2. The Applicant now applies by Notice of Motion dated 6 December 2022 for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the following is stated (sic):
“Director of Immigration and Torture Claims Appeal Board dismissed my non-refoulement claim. The High Court and the Court of Appeal dismissed my leave to apply for judicial review. All this judgemets are not good for me. I want to go to C.F.A.”.
3. 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, inter alia, the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal 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. No question of great general or public importance involved in the proposed appeal is identified in the Notice of Motion. We are unable to see any such question being involved in the proposed appeal. There is also no basis to grant leave to appeal on the “otherwise” limb in s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance.
5. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is refused and the Notice of Motion is dismissed.
| (Anderson Chow) Justice of Appeal | (S T Poon) Judge of the Court of First Instance |
The Applicant, unrepresented, appeared in person.