Case Details
SAIED ABDALLA MOHAMED ELSAYED ZAKY v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
[2026] HKCA 1513 · CACV 704/2026
Court of Appeal
CACV 704/2026, [2026] HKCA 1513
On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 3180
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 704 OF 2026
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1503 OF 2025)
__________________________
BETWEEN
| |SAIED ABDALLA MOHAMED ELSAYED ZAKY |Applicant |
| |and | |
| |TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ |Putative |
| |NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE |Respondent |
| |and | |
| |DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION |Putative |
| | |Interested Party|
__________________________
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 Mimmie Chan J (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. This is an appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge
KW Lung (“the Judge”) given on 18 June 2026[1] (“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 9 June 2025
(“the Board’s Decision”) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against
the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 7 April 2025
rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.
2. 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[2] as well as by the Judge in the Leave Decision at [4] and
[8]-[10], which will not be repeated.
3. 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 [13]-[18] of the Leave Decision.
Appeal to this court
4. In a Notice of Appeal dated 26 June 2026, the applicant stated:
“I would like to reject and review the Decision made by the
Court and TCAB. They disregard my dangerous situation.”
5. By written submissions dated 27 July 2026, the applicant repeated
his personal background and the factual basis to his claim, and
emphasised that he could not return to Egypt as a man named Ayman
would seriously harm or kill him.
6. 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
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. In the present case, while the Board accepted that Ayman and his
associates have in the past verbally threatened him and that there
had been a physical altercation between the parties in 2023, there
has been no further threats or contact between Ayman and the
applicant since that time, and there was no reason or basis to
believe that Ayman was still interested in locating and harming the
applicant. In any event, the Board took the view that there were
suitable options of internal relocation which would minimise the
risk of harm, if any. These were findings open to the Board, and
were sufficiently canvassed and considered by the Judge in the
Leave Decision at [8]-[18]. We see no basis to interfere.
10. 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.
11. 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.
|(Aarif Barma) |(Mimmie Chan) |
|Justice of Appeal |Judge of the |
| |Court of First Instance |
The applicant appearing in person
-----------------------
[1] [2026] HKCFI 3180
[2]https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2025/HCAL00
1503_2025_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf
-----------------------
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
VCitation
Court
Procedural posture
Issues
Holdings
Legal principles
Disposition
Appeal history
SAIED ABDALLA MOHAMED ELSAYED ZAKY v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CA · [2026] HKCA 1513
This judgment