Case Detail

ALI AMANAT v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Related cases with same parties

CACV100/2026SINGH NARINDER PAL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV10/2022ROBILLOS ADOLFO DE LA CRUZ v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV103/2021LUU THI VAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD /NON REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV103/2023ALMAS KHAWAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV103/2025COLLINS OBI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV104/2019DHALI JONY v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV104/2023VU THI NGOC MY v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV105/2021DINH THI VAN 對 TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITON OFFICE
CACV107/2023NGUYEN THI THUY v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV107/2025AHMAD AQEEL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV1081/2025HOANG VAN BINH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV110/2021AYUB MUHAMMAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV11/2023RUPASINGHA ARACHCHIGE SHIROMA THARANGANI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV112/2025NONG THI HA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV113/2022SITI MULDIYATI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV1151/2025ARSHDEEP SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV115/2022GALLEGO VALDES AUGUSTO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV115/2024QUIRANTE JACKIELON DE GUZMAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV115/2025DINH KHAC KIEN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV1153/2025MEGA PUSPITA SARI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Files (2)

[2026] HKCA 479-EN-2026-03-19

ALI AMANAT v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HTML content

CACV 96 /2025, [2026] HKCA 479

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 534

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 96 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2037 OF 2024)

________________________

BETWEEN

	Ali Amanat	Applicant
	and
	Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office	Putative Respondent
	and
	Director of Immigration	Putative Interested Party

________________________

Before:

Hon Kwan VP and Cheung JA in Court

Date of Judgment:

19 March 2026

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Kwan VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1. This is the applicant’s Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal handed down on 15 October 2025 ([2025] HKCA 927) whereby the Court of Appeal refused to grant relief from sanction for failing to comply with an unless order.

2. Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, the Registrar of Civil Appeals had directed that the applicant shall lodge written submissions on or before 5 November 2025. It was further directed that the Notice of Motion shall be determined on paper only without an oral hearing upon compliance with the said direction or the expiry of the time for complying with the direction. The applicant has not lodged any written submissions by the prescribed deadline. Having considered the papers of this case, we think it is appropriate to determine this application on paper and proceed to do so.

Grounds of appeal

3. In the Notice of Motion, the applicant stated that there are some errors in the judgments and he would like to “recheck” the judgments.

Analysis and disposition

4. Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484) provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, from any judgment of the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter, whether final or interlocutory, 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.

5. In the present application, the applicant has not identified any particular mistakes in our decision, nor did he identify any question of great general or public importance which ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for determination in accordance with section 22(1)(b). There is also no basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).

6. For the above reasons, we dismiss the Notice of Motion filed on 22 October 2025.

(Susan Kwan)	(Peter Cheung)
Vice President	Justice of Appeal

The Applicant (Appellant), acting in person

CACV 96/2025, [2025] HKCA 927

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 534

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 96 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2037 OF 2024)

________________________

BETWEEN
	Ali Amanat	Applicant
	and
	Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non‑refoulement Claims Petition Office	Putative Respondent
	and
	Director of Immigration	Putative Interested Party

________________________

Before:

Hon Kwan VP and Cheung JA in Court

Date of Judgment:

15 October 2025

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Kwan VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

The application

1. This is an application by a non-refoulement claimant for relief from sanction for failing to comply with an unless order.

Background

2. The applicant is a national of Pakistan. He raised a non-refoulement claim on 24 June 2024 on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by a villager and his sons due to a land dispute.

3. His claim was dismissed by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 19 August 2024. His appeal to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) was dismissed on 17 October 2024.

4. On 6 November 2024, the applicant filed a Form 86 to apply for leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Board. His leave application was dismissed by Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung on 18 February 2025[1]. He filed a notice of appeal on 28 February 2025 against the said decision of the judge.

5. On 28 February 2025, the Registrar of Civil Appeals directed that the applicant should lodge with the court two sets of appeal bundle on or before 14 March 2025. The applicant did not comply with this direction.

6. On 31 March 2025, Au JA made an order that unless the applicant lodges the appeal bundles by 4 pm on 15 April 2025, the appeal shall be dismissed automatically without further order (“the Unless Order”). The applicant did not lodge any appeal bundle by the prescribed time and his appeal was dismissed on 15 April 2025 pursuant to the Unless Order.

7. On 7 July 2025, the applicant filed the present summons to apply for extension of time to lodge an appeal bundle. As the appeal has already been dismissed, we shall treat this summons as an application for relief from sanction for failing to comply with the Unless Order.

8. Both the Department of Justice (acting for the Director) and the Board indicated their neutral stance in this application.

9. Having considered the papers of this case, we consider that it is appropriate for the Court of Appeal to determine the present summons on paper without holding an oral hearing pursuant to Order 59, rule 14A of the Rules of the High Court, Cap 4A (“RHC”).

Analysis

10. Pursuant to Order 2 rule 4 of the RHC, where a party has failed to comply with a rule or court order, any sanction for failure to comply imposed by the rule or court order has effect unless the party in default applies to the Court for and obtains relief from the sanction within 14 days of the failure.

11. Under Order 2 rule 5(1) of the RHC, when dealing with an application for relief from the sanction imposed by the failure to comply with a court order, the court shall consider all the circumstances, including, among other things, the interests of the administration of justice, whether the application for relief has been made promptly and whether there is a good explanation for the failure to comply.

12. The appeal was dismissed on 15 April 2025 for failure to comply with the Unless Order. The summons was filed on 7 July 2025, well out of the 14 days’ period stipulated under Order 2 rule 4. The applicant explained in his summons that he did not understand the procedure of law.

13. The court had already given an extension of time for lodging the appeal bundle and clearly stated the consequence of non-compliance in the Unless Order. Thus, the applicant cannot be excused for not understanding the legal procedure.

14. Furthermore, his appeal is unmeritorious. The applicant stated that he does not agree with the decision of the Court of First Instance as it is unfair. He contended that he is at serious risk of being harmed by his enemies and he will be killed if he returns to his home country. He further asserted that the decision makers did not consider his problem properly. These grounds of appeal are just bare assertions without evidence in support. The applicant has not demonstrated that the judge had made errors of law or failed to take account of relevant matters already placed before the court or was otherwise plainly wrong.

15. For the above reasons, we decline to exercise the discretion to grant relief from sanction and dismiss the summons filed on 7 July 2025.

(Susan Kwan)
Vice President

(Peter Cheung)
Justice of Appeal

The Applicant (Appellant), acting in person

[1] [2025] HKCFI 534