RE MUYINGO PETER

CACV 435/2026, [2026] HKCA 1171

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 2210

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 435 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 780 OF 2021)

________________________

________________________

________________________

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 Bruno Chan (“the Judge”)  dated 21 April 2026 ([2026] HKCFI 2210)  (“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 18 May 2021 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 15 July 2020, refusing his non-refoulement claim. 

2.  The applicant is a national of Uganda.  The basis of his non-refoulement claim is, if refouled, he will be harmed or killed by his friend over their land dispute.  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 [1] - [9] of the Leave Decision.  The Judge has set out his reasons for refusing the Leave Application at [10] - [15] of the Leave Decision.  We will not repeat the details herein.

3.  By the Notice of Appeal filed on 28 April 2026, the applicant claimed:

“The Judgment is a reasonable. I want to appeal against. I am pleading to Court of Appeal to review my application.” (sic)

4.  In support of his appeal, the applicant also lodged written submissions on 29 May 2026.  In those submissions, the applicant asserted that his enemy who threatened him has joined the military and he is scared to return to his home country as his enemy has ammunition and might hurt him badly.

5.  We heard the appeal on 15 June 2026.  During the hearing, the applicant confirmed 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.  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.  His assertions are general and bare allegations unsupported by 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].  As the Judge noted, there was no error of law or any procedural unfairness in the Board’s Decision: see [14] of the Leave Decision.  There is no viable ground of appeal and we see no basis to interfere with the Leave Decision.

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