RE MOHAMMAD SHARFARAZ

CACV 706/2026, [2026] HKCA 1576

On appeal from [2026] HKCFI 3182

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 706 OF 2026 

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 1500/2025) 

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

RE:		Mohammad Sharfaraz	Applicant

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

Before: Hon Barma JA and Mimmie Chan J in Court

Date of Hearing: 18 August 2026

Date of Judgment: 1 September 2026

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

This is an appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung (“the Judge”) given on 18 June 2026 (“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 12 June 2025 (“the Board’s Decision”) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 18 March 2025 rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.  

The applicant’s background, the basis of his claim and the Board’s reasons in reaching the Board’s Decision have been set out therein and summarised by the Judge at [7]-[9] of the Leave Decision, which will not be repeated.  

The applicant did not request for an oral hearing for the leave application.  After considering the documents filed by the applicant, the Judge dismissed the application for the reasons stated at [12]-[17] of the Leave Decision.  

Appeal to this court

In a Notice of Appeal dated 29 June 2026, the applicant contended that the Board failed to consider (i) “the Country of Origin condition that the authority at [his] country would not be able to protect [him]”; and (ii) the “true fact” that he raised in his claim as well as his fears under the “BOR 2 risk, BOR 3 risk and torture risk”.  

In his written submissions dated 10 July 2026, the applicant contended inter alia (without elaboration or particulars) that (i) the Board failed to consider and/or give proper weight to “relevant considerations”; (ii) the Board failed to follow “the high standard fairness”; (iii) merely because there were options for internal relocation did not mean he would be safe in his home country; (iv) the Judge applied “an incorrect test for non-refoulement” and wrongfully treated “credibility findings as conclusively determinative rather than part of a holistic risk assessment”. 

We heard the appeal on 18 August 2026, at which the applicant appeared in person.  At the hearing, the applicant had nothing further to add to the matters already set out in the documents filed with the court.  

Discussion

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. 

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. 

In the present case, the Board found the applicant to be an incredible witness and concluded that he had fabricated his claims (concerning his fear of harm by his cousins due to a land dispute) in their entirety.  These were findings open to the Board on the evidence, and were sufficiently canvassed and considered by the Judge in the Leave Decision at [7]-[17].  We see no basis to interfere. 

The applicant has accordingly 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. 

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. 

The applicant, unrepresented, appearing in person