RE SHERAZ MUHAMMAD

CACV 75/2026, [2026] HKCA 620

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 259

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 75 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1779 OF 2020)

________________________

________________________

________________________

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)  Teresa Wu (“the Judge”)  dated 15 January 2026 ([2026] HKCFI 259)  (“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 9 July 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”)  dated 22 February 2017 (“the Director’s Decision”), refusing his non-refoulement claim under all applicable grounds including BOR2 risk[1].

2.  The applicant’s 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 [2] of the Leave Decision.  The Judge has set out her reasons for refusing the Leave Application at [4] - [10] of the Leave Decision.  We will not repeat the details herein.

3.  By the Notice of Appeal filed on 28 January 2026, the applicant asserted:

“I am disagree with the decision maker authorities. Decision maker make same decision like Torture Claims Appeal Board/Director of Immigration. Sir they not proper investigation in my case, they not give me justice. Sir my home country my life have threating then I come in Hong Kong. Sir I don’t think my case determined fairly.” (sic)

4.  The applicant lodged written submissions on 27 February 2026.  In those submissions, the applicant complained that the Director had failed to give proper weight to state acquiescence which led to an unfair outcome.  He also complained that the Board acted unreasonably and was procedurally unfair by placing too much reliance on the Country of Origin information but failing to take the applicant’s personal background and experience into account.  He further complained that the Board had been irrational in dismissing his appeal.

5.  We heard the appeal on 16 March 2026.  An Urdu interpreter was also present to provide language assistance.  During the hearing, the applicant confirmed that he had nothing to add to his written materials.

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.  At the outset, the applicant’s allegations are new and not raised before the Judge.  He fails to give any reason as to why these grounds are only raised on appeal and not in the court below.  It is well established that this court will generally not entertain new arguments which are fact-and-evidence sensitive and have not been canvassed in the court below and for which leave has not been sought within time: Nupur Mst, supra, at [14] and Re Gurpreet Singh [2021] HKCA 1740 at [15].  The appeal can be dismissed on this basis alone.

9.  In any event, we see no merit in his contentions. Nowhere in his Notice of Appeal or submissions did the applicant identify any error committed by the Judge.  His assertions are mainly directed at the Director’s Decision or the Board’s Decision and are in any event all general, bare and vague allegations unsupported by specific particulars or evidence.  General and bare assertions of his fear if refouled do not constitute valid grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].  Clearly, his assertions do not constitute viable grounds of appeal and must fail.  As noted by the Judge at [6] of the Leave Decision, the Board had considered the applicant’s evidence in its entirety before concluding that he had failed to substantiate his case.  We agree with the Judge that the applicant failed to establish any error of law, procedural unfairness, or irrationality in the Board’s Decision.  We see no basis to disturb the Leave Decision.

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