Re Ali Saif

CACV 82/2026, [2026] HKCA 518

On appeal from [2026] HKCFI 112

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 82 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1382 OF 2021)

_______________________

_______________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

Hon K Yeung J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Val Chow (“the Judge”) dated 19 January 2026 ([2026] HKCFI 112) (“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 24 September 2021 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 13 January 2021, 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 [4] of the Leave Decision. The Judge has sets out his reasons for refusing the Leave Application: see [5] – [12] of the Leave Decision. We will not repeat the details herein.

3.By the Notice of Appeal filed on 29 January 2026, the applicant asserts:

… the Plaintiff will face hardship if he is to return back to his home country and that the Torture Claims Appeal Board has significantly relied on the source of news which is not officially recognized, or it is simply hearsay. They have also relied on some cases which are outdated considering the dramatic changes. The lack of credible source of information has resulted in them making groundless speculations. (sic)

4.The applicant lodged written submissions on 9 February 2026. In those submissions, he cites broad legal principles and various case authorities on procedural fairness and the high standards of fairness, but fails to condescend upon particulars as to how those broad legal principles are relevant to, or in any way assist, his present appeal. It is the application of those principles to the facts which is important, and which the applicant has completely failed to address.

5.We heard the appeal on 16 March 2026. An Urdu interpreter was also present to provide language assistance. The applicant did not make any oral submission.

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 appeals 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: Nupur Mst at [14(6)].

8.Nowhere in his Notice of Appeal or submissions has the applicant identified any error committed by the Judge. His assertions are all directed at the Board’s Decision and are in any event 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.

The applicant appeared in person