RE SHAH SAJJAD

CACV 1204/2025, [2026] HKCA 141

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 6246

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 1204 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 36 OF 2020)

_______________

_______________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Hon Leung J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of B Fung J (“the Judge”) dated 12 December 2025 ([2025] HKCFI 6246) (“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 13 December 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”). By the Board’s Decision, his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 6 September 2018, which refused his non-refoulement claim, was dismissed.

2.  The applicant is a Pakistani national. His personal background, the basis of his claim and his arguments advanced before the Board as well as the Board’s reasons for rejecting his appeal were set out in the Board’s Decision: see [2] – [4] of the Leave Decision. The Judge also set out his reasons for refusing the Leave Application: see [5] – [8] of the Leave Decision. We will not repeat the details herein.

3.  By the Notice of Appeal filed on 17 December 2025, the applicant stated:

“I am not agree with the decision maker authorities. Sir decision maker not proper investigation my case. They not give me justice. Sir decision maker give same decision like Torture Claims Appeal Board and Director of Immigration. They give totally unfair decision Sir my Home Country police not help me then I come here for protection of my life. I do not think my case determined fairly.” (sic)

4.  The appeal was listed to be heard on 2 February 2026. By the directions made by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 17 December 2025, which were received by the applicant on the same day, he was directed to lodge two sets of skeleton argument on or before 19 January 2026, failing which, he would be deemed to have waived his right to have an oral hearing for the appeal and the hearing date would be vacated with the appeal being determined on paper.

5.  The applicant did not lodge any skeleton argument in support of his appeal. Accordingly he was deemed to have waived his right to have an oral hearing and elected to have his appeal disposed of on paper. The hearing date was thus vacated on 20 January 2026.

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]. 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.

7.  Apart from stating his disagreement and complaint about unfairness, the applicant did not actually identify and particularise in the Notice of Appeal any error committed by the Judge in reaching the Leave Decision which could give rise to any ground of appeal. His reiteration of assertion of fear upon refoulement is bare and general, and in any event does not constitute viable ground of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].

8.  We see no basis to interfere with the Leave Decision.

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