RE GOFRAN MOHAMMED

CACV 315/2026, [2026] HKCA 1073

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 1223

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 315 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 52 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) Sabrina Ho (“the Judge”) dated 23 March 2026 ([2026] HKCFI 1223) (“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 22 December 2021 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 30 April 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 enemies of a different political party. 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 [5] of the Leave Decision. The Judge has set out her reasons for refusing the Leave Application at [6] ‑ [15] of the Leave Decision. We will not repeat the details herein.

3.  By the Notice of Appeal filed on 27 March 2026, the applicant claimed that the Director failed to properly consider or give weight to state acquiescence. He further complained that the Board failed to make sufficient enquiries before finalising the determination, did not give him sufficient chance to arrange for relevant evidence to be provided, and had been unfair in the treatment of the Country of Origin information.

4.  In support of his appeal, the applicant also lodged written submissions on 30 April 2026. In those submissions, he cited various case authorities in relation to the requirements of high standards of fairness. However, he did not set out specifically how they were relevant to his 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 confirmed that he had nothing further 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.  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 that the Board’s Decision, and are in any event general and bare 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]. There are no viable grounds of appeal.

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