Re Ahmad Aziz Alias Aziz Ahmad and Others

CACV 897/2025, [2026] HKCA 515

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 4675

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 897 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1619 OF 2020)

___________________________

___________________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.This is the applicants’ appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the Judge”) dated 9 October 2025 ([2025] HKCFI 4675) (“the Leave Decision”) dismissing their 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 27 May 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed their appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 28 September 2018, refusing their non‑refoulement claims.

2.The applicants’ backgrounds, the basis of their claims and arguments advanced before the Board as well as the Board’s reasons for rejecting their appeal are all set out in the Board’s Decision: see [1] to [18] of the Leave Decision. The Judge has set out his reasons for refusing the Leave Application: see [19] – [24] of the Leave Decision. We will not repeat the details herein.

3.By the Notice of Appeal filed on 17 October 2025, the applicants assert that the Director failed to give proper weight to state acquiescence and was unfair in determining their claims. They further complain that the Board failed to make sufficient inquiry before finalising the determination and did not give sufficient chance to the applicants to arrange relevant evidence.  

4.The applicants lodged written submissions on 9 February 2026. In those submissions, they cite broad legal principles and various case authorities on procedural fairness and the high standards of fairness but fail otherwise to give any detail or particular as to how those broad legal principles are relevant to the facts, or in any way assist their present appeal.

5.We heard the appeal on 16 March 2026. An Urdu interpreter was also present to provide language assistance. During the hearing, only the 3^rd applicant made oral submissions. She claimed that in the last 2 months, there were some incidents that took place in their country which relate to their situation, and that it would be dangerous for them to go back. She however did not give any details or particulars on those alleged incidents.

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 [14(6)].

8.At the outset, the applicants’ allegations are new and not raised before the Judge. They fail to give any reason as to why these grounds are only raised on appeal and not in the court below. It is well established that this court will generally not entertain new arguments which are fact-and-evidence sensitive and have not been canvassed in the court below and for which leave has not been sought within time: Nupur Mst at [14] and Re Gurpreet Singh [2021] HKCA 1740 at [15]. Their appeal can be dismissed on this basis alone.

9.In any event, nowhere in their Notice of Appeal or submissions have the applicants identified any error committed by the Judge. Their assertions are all directed at the Board’s Decision and the Director’s Decision, and are in any event general, bare and vague allegations unsupported by specific particulars or evidence. What the 3^rd applicant said during the hearing was equally devoid of particulars. General and bare assertions of their fear if refouled do not constitute valid grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6]. Clearly, their assertions do not constitute viable grounds of appeal and must fail. We see no basis to disturb the Leave Decision.

10.For the above reasons, the applicants’ appeal against the Leave Decision has no merit and is dismissed.

The 1^st to 4^th applicants appeared in person