Re: SAGEER HUSSAIN alias SAGHEER HUSSAIN

CACV 428/2026, [2026] HKCA 1257

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 2095

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 428 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 364 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 Michael Wong (“the Judge”) dated 15 April 2026 ([2026] HKCFI 2095) (“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 12 March 2021 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 13 July 2017 (“the Director’s Decision”), refusing his non‑refoulement claim.

2.This appeal was scheduled to be heard on 15 June 2026.  Despite the directions from the Court to the applicant dated 27 April 2026 (“Directions”), which were received by the applicant on the same day, he failed to lodge written submissions by 1 June 2026 as required under paragraph 9(1) of the Directions.  Accordingly, by paragraph 11 of the Directions, the hearing of the appeal was vacated on 2 June 2026 and the same was communicated by letter to the applicant via post on the same day (“the Letter”).

3.Subsequently, by a letter dated 14 June 2026 which was received by the Court via post on 2 July 2026, the applicant claimed that he had fulfilled all the instructions as required by the Directions by submitting two sets of appeal bundles.  However, he received the Letter on 8 June 2026 and claimed that he wanted to present some video evidence for his oral hearing but the same was already vacated.

4.In our view, the applicant must be clearly aware of the requirement and the time limit for lodging his skeleton submissions as well as the consequence for failing to lodge the same as stipulated in the Directions.  At no point did the applicant seek leave from the Court requesting to be exempted from lodging skeleton submissions by the stipulated time.  He also failed to produce the alleged video evidence or demonstrate the contents thereof, or condescend upon particulars of how it would have any impact on his appeal, or why he wanted to present the alleged evidence at such a late stage of the proceedings.  In the circumstances, we see no prejudice in considering the applicant’s appeal on paper and we will proceed to do so as per paragraph 11 of the Directions.

5.The applicant is a national of Pakistan.  The basis of his non‑refoulement claim is, if refouled, he will be killed or harmed by members or supporters of the Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) owing to political disputes and that he would be at risk from the family of Hamid, the applicant’s neighbour who was shot to death by the applicant’s cousin Tahir Waseem using the applicant’s pistol.  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] ‑ [14] of the Leave Decision.  The Judge has also set out in detail his reasons for refusing the Leave Application: see [20] ‑ [46] of the Leave Decision.  We will not repeat the details herein.

6.By the Notice of Appeal filed on 27 April 2026, the applicant asserted:

“The Honorable High Court Judge Have Not Shown Any Personal Opinion. He Just Copy from the Adjudicator of [TCAB]. He might failed to show Any (CAOS) for cancel my leave. Although, I respect to the Honourable Judge decision and urge for another Judgement.” (sic)

7.On the same day, the applicant also filed an affirmation alleging that he “get the decision by post on lost 20 April 2026 thereby I want to submit my Exhibit As (A) with this affirmation” (sic).  In Exhibit A, the applicant reiterated the factual basis of his non-refoulement claim and claimed that the police had issued the charge sheet and warrant against him and that he would be arrested upon refoulement.  He also alleged that his brother had disowned him and that his brother and mother had died and thus he had no family in Pakistan.  He also alleged that in 2022, the enemy party visited his cousin’s shop inquiring about the applicant, and after dispute arose, his cousin was killed and died on the spot inside the car when trying to escape.  He then claimed that the local gangster and his enemy seized his property and that anyone helping him might be killed and the police did not want to make any case against his enemies.  He thus claimed that he had lost everything in Pakistan and wished to stay safe in Hong Kong.  He also attached various documents to his affirmation including: (a) a photo of an “Affidavit/Disown Ship” dated 24 March 2019; (b) a photo of a “Family Registration Certificate” dated 1 October 2025; (c) eight photos showing some gates/doors and dead bodies which the applicant alleged demonstrated the enemies’ attack as he alleged (collectively referred to as “the Photos”).

8.As mentioned above, the applicant failed to lodge his written submissions in support of his appeal.

DISCUSSION

9.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].

10.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)].

11.At the outset, the applicant’s allegations are all vague, bare and general in nature, and are in any event directed at the Board’s Decision, and have failed to specifically identify any errors in the Leave Decision.  His submissions are essentially a repeat of those submissions advanced before the Judge, which the Judge had duly considered and rejected: see [15] ‑ [46] of the Leave Decision.  It is trite that an appeal against the refusal of leave by a judge in the Court of First Instance is not an occasion for regurgitating arguments advanced and rejected by the judge: Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration (supra) at [14(2)].  The applicant merely disagreed with the Judge’s observations, but failed to point out with specific particulars how the Judge had erred in law or on the facts.  General assertions of fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].  Clearly, his assertions are not proper grounds of appeal and must fail.  We see no basis to interfere with the Leave Decision.

12.For completeness, in relation to those incidents which allegedly happened in 2022, even taking the applicant’s case at its highest, these allegedly happened subsequent to the Board’s Decision and are therefore not relevant to his intended judicial review.  Regarding the Photos, save for the “Affidavit/Disown Ship” dated 24 March 2019, it appears that the remaining photos were not before the Judge.  The applicant failed to demonstrate how they satisfied the rules in relation to admission of fresh evidence on appeal as set out in Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489 at p1491[1], and how the Photos have any bearing on his appeal.  Accordingly, we see no basis to consider the Photos in the present appeal.

13.The applicant’s appeal against the Leave Decision has no merit and is dismissed.

The applicant acting in person