RE HOSSAIN SHAHID

CACV 951/2025, [2026] HKCA 509

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 5076

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 951 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 3552 OF 2019)

______________________

______________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

Hon K Yeung J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Michael Wong (“the Judge”) dated 23 October 2025 ([2025] HKCFI 5076) (“the Leave Decision”) refusing 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 1 November 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 27 January 2017 refusing his non-refoulement claim.

2.  This appeal was scheduled to be heard on 15 January 2026. Despite the directions from the Court to the applicant dated 4 December 2025 (“Directions”), the applicant failed to lodge written submission by the stipulated time. Accordingly, by [4] of the Directions, the hearing of the appeal was vacated and the Court will now deal with this appeal on paper. On 22 December 2025, after the stipulated deadline, the applicant lodged his written submission. The Court will in making this Judgment nonetheless take his written submission into account.

3.  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 [9], [22], [28]-[34] of the Leave Decision[1].

4.  In short, the applicant last arrived in Hong Kong in March 2014 as a visitor but he overstayed. He was arrested and was referred to the Immigration Department[2]. He made a non-refoulement claim in May 2014[3]. The basis of his claim was that if he were to be returned to India, he would be harmed or killed by his creditor for failure to repay the money he owed[4].

5.  The Judge also set out in detail the grounds advanced by the applicant in support of the Leave Application and his reasons for refusing the Leave Application: see [10]-[38] of the Leave Decision. We will not repeat the details herein.

6.  By the Notice of Appeal filed on 30 October 2025, the applicant stated:

I don’t agree with the Judgment. It is unreasonable. Please review my application. (sic)

7.  In his written submissions, the applicant repeated his claimed immigration history. He stated that if he were to be returned he would be killed. He stated that the Director, the Board and the High Court rejected his application. He stated that all the information he provided was true.

Discussion

8.  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].

9.  In particular, in an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in a non-refoulement case, 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 at [14(6)].

10.  In light of the above, it is incumbent on the applicant to point out the errors in the Leave Decision with sufficient particulars and specifics.

11.  However, nowhere in his Notice of Appeal or written submission did the applicant identify any error committed by the Judge with specific particulars. His assertions are all general, bare and vague allegations unsupported by specific particulars or evidence. General assertions of his fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6]. The Court will not usurp the role of the Board. Assessment of evidence, country of origin information materials, risk of harm, state protection and viability of internal relocation are primarily within the province of the Board (and the Director). 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. No such error was demonstrated by the applicant. Clearly, his assertions do not constitute viable grounds of appeal and lack substance. We see no basis to interfere with the Leave Decision.

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