RE ARSHAD MAHMOOD

CACV 63/2026, [2026] HKCA 618

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 387

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 63 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 234 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 20 January 2026 ([2026] HKCFI 387)  (“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 4 February 2021 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 23 November 2020, refusing his non-refoulement claim.

2.  The applicant’s 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] - [10] of the Leave Decision.  The Judge has set out his reasons for refusing the Leave Application at [11] - [15] of the Leave Decision.  We will not repeat the details herein.

3.  By the Notice of Appeal filed on 26 January 2026, the applicant asserted:

“THE HIGH COURT DID NOT CONSIDER MY JR. ADJUDICATOR DID NOT GIVE ME CORRECT DECISION. HIS DECISION IS FULL OF WRONG. PLEASE GRANT MY LEAVE.” (sic)

4.  The applicant lodged written submissions on 25 February 2026.  In those submissions, he claimed that he would be tortured and killed by his enemies upon refoulement and it would be unfair to return to his home country.  He also claimed that the Judge had been unreasonable, wrong as a matter of law, procedurally unfair and failed to analyse his claims properly in dismissing his application.  He also claimed that the Board had failed to give him sufficient chance to arrange relevant evidence and that the Board had been irrational.

5.  We heard the appeal on 16 March 2026.  An Urdu interpreter was also present to provide language assistance.  During the hearing, the applicant confirmed that 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.  Nowhere in his Notice of Appeal or submissions did the applicant identify any error committed by the Judge with specific particulars.  His assertions are all general, bare and vague allegations unsupported by specific particulars or evidence.  General and bare assertions of his fear if refouled do not constitute valid grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].  Clearly, his assertions do not constitute viable grounds of appeal and must fail.  We see no basis to disturb the Leave Decision.

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