GURJANT SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 912/2025, [2026] HKCA 631

On Appeal from [2025] HKCFI 4446

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 912 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2272 OF 2020)

________________________

_____________________

________________________

JUDGMENT

________________________

Hon H. Au-Yeung J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  On 9 February 2026, this court (Anthony Chan JA and H. Au-Yeung J) handed down a judgment ([2026] HKCA 35) dismissing the applicant's appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung given on 13 October 2025 refusing leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dismissing his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting his non-refoulement claim.

2.  By a Notice of Motion filed on 16 February 2026, the applicant applied for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, he stated that:

“I would like to inform to the Court of Final Appeal. I am disagree with the decision maker authorities. There are not proper investigation in my case. The Respondent’s is in breach of procedural fairness in and unlawfully fettered his discretion by refused my appeal on the grounds that they did not satisfy the requirements.”

3.  In his Written Submission lodged on 5 March 2026, the applicant submitted that:

(1)     The decisions of the Director and the Board were not made fairly;

(2)     The applicant was deprived of the right to make “full grounds of appeal” because the documents were not translated or read back to him;

(3)     The Court erred in failing to appreciate the significance of the applicant’s non-refoulement claim;

(4)     There had been a lack of assistance rendered to the applicant;

(5)     The authorities had adopted a policy of disposing of non-refoulement cases as quickly as possible, which led to procedural unfairness;

(6)     The applicant, who is unrepresented, had not been provided with a proper and fair mechanism to understand his claim;

(7)     The applicant was never provided with proper legal and language assistance;

(8)     The authorities adopted a policy of quickly disposing of non-refoulement cases, which is discriminatory and unfair;

(9)     The Board’s decision to refuse the appeal was unreasonable, irrational or the result of procedural errors or unfairness.

4.  Having considered the applicant's Notice of Motion and Written Submission, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on the papers.  We have, therefore, determined the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents filed.

5.  The matters stated by the applicant do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484, Laws of Hong Kong) (“the Ordinance”). Nor is any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised.

6.  Further, the applicant has failed to demonstrate any error in our judgment.

7.  Neither do we see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance.

8.  For these reasons, the Notice of Motion filed on 16 February 2026 is dismissed.