RE ASHRAF AZAD MOHAMMED

CACV 992/2025, [2026] HKCA 1334

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 5257

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 992 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 3533 OF 2019)

_______________

_______________

_______________

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 Michael Wong (“the Judge”) dated 4 November 2025 ([2025] HKCFI 5257) (“the Leave Decision”) dismissing his application for leave to apply for judicial review out of time (“the Leave Application”) against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 13 April 2017 (“the Board’s Decision”) and the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 25 November 2016 (“the Director’s Decision”), refusing his non‑refoulement claim.

2.  The applicant is a national of India.  The basis of his non‑refoulement claim is, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by his creditors, people from the All India Trinamool Congress and a man named Saddan, who used to be his best friend and was a member of the Communist Party of India (Marxist).  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 [5] and [10] ‑ [15] of the Leave Decision.  The Judge has set out his reasons for refusing the Leave Application at [16] ‑ [53] of the Leave Decision. We will not repeat the details herein.

3.  By the Notice of Appeal filed on 10 November 2025, the applicant stated:

“the grounds of this appeal are that the gravity of my circumstances have noted been weighed or realized by both putative Respondents while considering my non-refoulement claim. I should be given an opportunity to plead my case properly.” (sic)

4.  The applicant lodged his written submissions in support of his appeal on 25 November 2025.  In those submissions, he cited various general propositions and legal authorities on the requirements of high standards of fairness and Wednesbury unreasonableness, as well as section 37ZT of the Immigration Ordinance (Cap 115), which is related to the late filing of notice of appeal before the Board.  However, the applicant failed to specify how those legal principles are relevant to his case.

5.  On 10 November 2025, the applicant also indicated his consent in writing for this appeal to be disposed of on paper.  Accordingly, we proceed to consider this appeal on paper based on the available 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 specific error committed by the Judge with particulars.  His assertions are all general, vague and bare without any particulars or supporting evidence.  General assertions of fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].  Furthermore, both the Board and the Judge had given ample opportunities to the applicant to present his case.[1]  Clearly, his assertions are without substance.  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 hereby dismissed.