RE MEHMOOD SAJID

CACV 358/2025, [2026] HKCA 584

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 1681

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 358 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 398/2020)

-----------------------------------

-----------------------------------

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.  This is an appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Michael Wong (“the Judge”) given on 27 May 2025[1] (“the Leave Decision”) refusing to grant leave for the applicant to apply for judicial review. The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/adjudicator of the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 6 January 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 21 January 2019 rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

2.  The applicant’s background, the basis of his claim and the Board’s reasons in reaching the Board’s Decision have been set out by the Judge in the Leave Decision at [2][2] and [12]-[13], which will not be repeated.  

3.  The applicant did not ask for an oral hearing for his leave application.  After considering the documents filed by the applicant, the Judge dismissed the application for the reasons stated at [11]-[17] of the Leave Decision.

Appeal to this court

4.  By a Notice of Appeal dated 2 June 2025, the applicant stated that he disagreed with all decisions made in his case, that the High Court “favoured” the Board, and that “the decision” was “totally unfair”.  

5.  By written submissions dated 10 June 2025, the applicant made various complaints against the Board and the Judge, without providing particulars or elaboration.  The applicant contended, inter alia, that the Judge “favoured immigration” and had not “read [his] case properly” and has “ignored many things”.  The applicant also submitted that the Board’s Decision was “not fair or reasonable as required by the Wednesbury test in failing to recognise that his life must be protected by the criminal law”.  

6.  The applicant did not request an oral hearing and consented to the appeal being disposed of on paper by the court.  We will accordingly deal with the appeal on paper on the basis of the materials already filed with the court.

Discussion

7.  As this court has often stated, an appeal to the Court of Appeal is not a fresh application for judicial review.  It is necessary to identify some error on the part of the judge that would justify this court in intervening: see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14].  The court will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there are errors of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board.  An appeal is not the occasion for regurgitating arguments advanced and rejected by the judge or for running arguments which could and should have been raised but were not raised before the judge.  In the determination of an appeal, the Court of Appeal focuses on the decision of the judge and the court will only reverse that decision if an appellant could demonstrate that the judge made errors of law or failed to take account of relevant matters already placed before the court or was otherwise plainly wrong.

8.  The applicant has failed to identify any error on the part of the Judge and thus failed to raise any viable ground of appeal. The points advanced by the applicant were bare assertions unsupported by particulars or evidence.  General assertions of fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].

9.  In the present case, the Board concluded on the evidence that the threats of harm as alleged by the applicant did not surpass the high threshold and minimal level of severity required to justify protection for non-refoulement.  In any event, the Board considered that adequate state protection and suitable options of internal relocation were available to the applicant in order to minimise the risk of harm, if any.  These were factual findings open to the Board on the evidence, and were sufficiently canvassed and considered by the Judge in the Leave Decision at [11]-[17].  We see no basis to interfere.

10.  The applicant has failed to demonstrate how the Board had acted unlawfully or procedurally unfairly in reaching its Decision, or how such Decision could be said to be Wednesbury unreasonable.

11.  As we have noted, the applicant advanced no viable grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision.  There is therefore no merit in the appeal and we dismiss the appeal accordingly.