Saied Abdalla Mohamed Elsayed Zaky v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
|
CACV 704/2026, [2026] HKCA 1513 On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 3180 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO 704 OF 2026 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1503 OF 2025) __________________________ 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 KW Lung (“the Judge”) given on 18 June 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 9 June 2025 (“the Board’s Decision”) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 7 April 2025 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 [4] and [8]-[10], which will not be repeated. 3.The applicant did not request for an oral hearing for the leave application. After considering the documents filed by the applicant, the Judge dismissed the application for the reasons stated at [13]-[18] of the Leave Decision. Appeal to this court 4.In a Notice of Appeal dated 26 June 2026, the applicant stated:
5.By written submissions dated 27 July 2026, the applicant repeated his personal background and the factual basis to his claim, and emphasised that he could not return to Egypt as a man named Ayman would seriously harm or kill him. 6.We heard the appeal on 18 August 2026, at which the applicant appeared in person. At the hearing, the applicant had nothing further to add to the matters already set out in 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. 9.In the present case, while the Board accepted that Ayman and his associates have in the past verbally threatened him and that there had been a physical altercation between the parties in 2023, there has been no further threats or contact between Ayman and the applicant since that time, and there was no reason or basis to believe that Ayman was still interested in locating and harming the applicant. In any event, the Board took the view that there were suitable options of internal relocation which would minimise the risk of harm, if any. These were findings open to the Board, and were sufficiently canvassed and considered by the Judge in the Leave Decision at [8]-[18]. 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 be Wednesbury 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 appearing in person [2] https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2025/HCAL001503_2025_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf |