RE MUZIBUR RAHAMAN alias FAZLU RAHAMAN

CACV 651/2026, [2026] HKCA 1492

On appeal from [2026] HKCFI 3242

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 651 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 1181/2021)

--------------------------------------

--------------------------------------

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

Hon Barma JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is an appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Lewis Law (“the Judge”) given on 3 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 12 August 2021 (“the Board’s Decision”) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 13 August 2018 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 [2]-[4], which will not be repeated. 

3.  After considering the documents filed by the applicant and the oral submissions he made at the hearing of the leave application, the Judge dismissed the application for the reasons stated at [5]-[12] of the Leave Decision.  

Appeal to this court

4.  In a Notice of Appeal dated 16 June 2026, the applicant stated inter alia that (i) the Board’s Decision was made in breach of natural justice as it failed to conduct adequate inquiries; (ii) the Board’s evaluation of the applicant’s credibility was unreasonable and had no factual basis; (iii) the Judge was wrong to dismiss the leave application “on the grounds of lateness and lack of merit”.

5.  In his written submissions dated 9 July 2026, the applicant submitted, inter alia, that the Board acted in a procedurally unfair manner by failing to properly assess the credibility of the applicant and that, essentially, the Judge failed to safeguard the “substantive rights” of the applicant “particularly when the potential for torture is at stake”.

6.  We heard the appeal on 6 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 lodged 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, the Board found the applicant to be an incredible witness and thus rejected his allegation that he was assaulted by a man named Zafar.  The Board on the totality of the evidence concluded that the applicant will not face a real risk of harm upon refoulement.  In any event, suitable options of internal location are available to the applicant in order to minimise the risk of harm, if any.  These were factual findings open to the Board on the evidence, and were sufficiently canvassed and considered by the Judge in the Leave Decision at [5]-[12].  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.