RE QAISER MUHAMMAD

CACV 1203/2025, [2026] HKCA 134

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 5993

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 1203 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 702 OF 2021)

_______________

_______________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Hon Leung J(giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Jeffrey Chau (“the Judge”) dated 11 December 2025 ([2025] HKCFI 5993) (“the Leave Decision”) dismissing his application for leave to apply for judicial review (“the Leave Application”) against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 10 May 2021 (“the Board’s Decision”). By the Board’s Decision, his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 13 September 2019, which refused his non-refoulement claim, was dismissed.

2.  The applicant was born in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province (Pakistan). His background, the basis of his claim and his arguments advanced before the Board as well as the Board’s reasons for rejecting his appeal were set out in the Board’s Decision: see [1] of the Leave Decision[1]. At the hearing of the Leave Application, the applicant expressed his wish to withdraw the application, which the Judge acceded to. Hence his dismissal of the application: see [3] – [4] of the Leave Decision.

3.  However, the applicant filed a Notice of Appeal on 17 December 2025 whereby he stated:

“THE HIGH COURT DID NOT FIND ANY ERROR OF PROCEDING BUT I CAN SHOW MANY ERROR. GIVE ME A CHANCE TO SHOW THE ERROR OF THE ADJUDICATOR. MY APPLY SOULD NOT BE REFUSED.” (sic)

4.  The applicant lodged written submissions on 19 January 2026 whereby he essentially reiterates his fear of serious harm from his creditors (or according to him “loan sharks”) upon refoulement.

5.  We heard the appeal on 2 February 2026. An Urdu interpreter was present to provide language assistance. During the hearing, the applicant indicated nothing to add to his written representations.

6.  The relevant legal principles governing appeals in non-refoulement cases were set out in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14]. In particular, in an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in non-refoulement cases, the Court of Appeal will only examine the decision of the judge in light of the grounds advanced by the applicant. If no viable ground is put forward to reverse the judge’s decision, the appeal should be dismissed. The Court’s role is not to examine the decision maker’s decision afresh as if it were a fresh application for judicial review.

7.  As it was pursuant to his request at the hearing before the Judge to withdraw the Leave Application that the Judge dismissed the same, the present appeal against such decision and outcome is a non-starter.

8.  In any event, the applicant did not identify and particularise in the Notice of Appeal any error committed by the Judge in the Leave Decision which could give rise to any ground of appeal. Reiteration of assertions of fear if refouled, which the Board had considered, does not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].

9.  For the above reasons, the applicant’s appeal against the Leave Decision has no merit and is dismissed.