Muhamad Ibrahim Agus Alwi v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 487/2026, [2026] HKCA 1181

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 1918

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 487 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 626 OF 2022)

__________________________

BETWEEN

__________________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

Hon Mimmie Chan J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.This is an appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bonnie Cheng (“the Judge”) given on 30 April 2026[1] (“the Leave Decision”) refusing to grant leave for the applicant to apply for judicial review. The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/adjudicator of the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 18 May 2022 (“the Board’s Decision”) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 24 May 2021 rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

2.The applicant’s background, the basis of his claim and the Board’s reasons in reaching the Board’s Decision have been set out therein[2] as well as by the Judge in the Leave Decision at [3]-[4] and [9], which will not be repeated.

3.The applicant was absent at the hearing of the leave application. After considering the documents filed by the applicant, the Judge dismissed the application for the reasons stated at [5]-[11] of the Leave Decision.

Appeal to this court

4.In a Notice of Appeal dated 12 May 2026, the applicant stated:

“I would like to reject and review the Decision made by the Court and TCAB. They disregard our dangerous situation.”

5.By written submissions dated 12 June 2026, the applicant repeated the factual background to his claim and the dangers he allegedly faced should he be refouled. 

6.We heard the appeal on 2 July 2026, at which the applicant was absent. We have therefore proceeded to determine the appeal on the basis of the documents filed with the Court.

Discussion

7.As this court has often stated, an appeal to the Court of Appeal is not a fresh application for judicial review. It is necessary to identify some error on the part of the judge that would justify this court in intervening: see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14]. The court will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there are errors of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board. An appeal is not the occasion for regurgitating arguments advanced and rejected by the judge or for running arguments which could and should have been raised but were not raised before the judge. In the determination of an appeal, the Court of Appeal focuses on the decision of the judge and the court will only reverse that decision if an appellant could demonstrate that the judge made errors of law or failed to take account of relevant matters already placed before the court or was otherwise plainly wrong.

8.The applicant has failed to identify any error on the part of the Judge and thus failed to raise any viable ground of appeal. The points advanced by the applicant were bare assertions unsupported by particulars or evidence. General assertions of fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: ReSaldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].

9.In the present case, while the Board accepted that the applicant had at a point in time been pursued by two individuals (who were charged with drug offences) for the reason that the applicant had reported their criminal activity to the police, it considered that the risk of harm from these individuals were localised to the applicant’s home town and thus could be effectively mitigated by way of the applicant’s internal relocation. These were factual findings open to the Board on the evidence, and were sufficiently canvassed and considered by the Judge in the Leave Decision at [5]-[11]. We see no basis to interfere.

10.The applicant has accordingly failed to demonstrate how the Board had acted unlawfully or procedurally unfairly in reaching its Decision, or how such Decision could be said to beWednesbury unreasonable.

11.As we have noted, the applicant advanced no viable grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision. There is therefore no merit in the appeal and we dismiss the appeal accordingly.

The applicant, unrepresented, absent