RE AL AMIN MD

CACV 285/2026, [2026] HKCA 1071

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 1489

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 285 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 337 OF 2022)

_______________

_______________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

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

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Calvin Cheuk (“the Judge”) dated 17 March 2026 ([2026] HKCFI 1489) (“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 25 April 2022 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 23 July 2021, refusing his non‑refoulement claim.

2.  The applicant is a national of Bangladesh. The basis of his non-refoulement claim is, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by his political enemies owing to his political affiliation. His background, the basis of his claim and arguments advanced before the Board as well as the Board’s reasons for rejecting his appeal are all set out in the Board’s Decision: see [3] of the Leave Decision. The Judge has set out his reasons for refusing the Leave Application at [4] ‑ [14] of the Leave Decision. We will not repeat the details herein.

3.  By the Notice of Appeal filed on 23 March 2026, the applicant claimed:

“I am disagree with the decision maker authorities. Decision maker not give me justice. They were make my decision totally unfair like Torture Claims Appeal Board/Director of Immigration. Sir my life have threating in my Home Country. If I go back my country then my life no more. Please proper investigation my case and I request to you please grant my claim for safety of my life.” (sic)

4.  In support of his appeal, the applicant also lodged written submissions on 13 May 2026. In those submissions, he cited various case authorities on the requirements of high standards of fairness. However, he failed to condescend upon particulars as to how they are relevant to his own case.

5.  We heard the appeal on 27 May 2026. A Bengali interpreter was also present to provide language assistance. During the hearing, the applicant claimed that his wife is currently eight months pregnant and that her ex-husband is a renowned politician and that it will be dangerous for them to return to Bangladesh.

DISCUSSION

6.  The relevant legal principles governing appeals in non‑refoulement cases are set out in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14].

7.  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. See Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14(6)].

8.  We see no merit in his contentions. Nowhere in his Notice of Appeal did the applicant identify any error committed by the Judge with specific particulars or give any ground in support of his appeal. His assertions are mainly directed at the Board’s Decision, and are in any event general and bare allegations unsupported by specific 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]. There are therefore no viable grounds of appeal.

9.  In relation to the assertions made by the applicant during the oral hearing, other than being mere assertions, even at their highest, these matters are not previously made before the Director, the Board or the Judge. They thus have no bearing on the respective decisions of the Director, the Board and the Judge. Accordingly, they are not relevant to his intended judicial review against the Board’s Decision.

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