RE HASSAN BILAL

CACV 411/2026, [2026] HKCA 1244 On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 2121

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO 411 OF 2026 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 282 OF 2021) _______ RE:

HASSAN BILAL Applicant _____ Before: Hon Au JA and Cheng J in Court Date of Judgment: 22 July 2026 _____

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 To (“ the Judge ”) dated 17 April 2026 ( [2026] HKCFI 2121 ) (“ the Leave Decision ”) refusing to grant extension of time and 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 16 July 2020 (“ the Board’s Decision ”), whereby the Board dismissed his petition against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“ the Director ”) dated 22 March 2017 (“ the Director’s Decision ”), refusing his non‑refoulement claim under BOR2 Risk ground.

2. This appeal was scheduled to be heard on 15 June 2026. Despite the directions from the court to the applicant dated 22 April 2026 (“ Directions ”), which were received by the applicant on the same day, he failed to lodge written submissions by the stipulated time. Accordingly, by paragraph 11 of the Directions, the hearing of the appeal was vacated and the court will now deal with this appeal on paper.

3. 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 (N) for refusing to join their political party. 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] ‑ [3] of the Leave Decision. The Judge has also set out in detail his reasons for refusing the Leave Application: see [4] ‑ [13] of the Leave Decision. We will not repeat the details herein.

4. By the Notice of Appeal filed on 22 April 2026, the applicant asserted: “I am disagree with the decision maker authorities, decision maker not properly investigation in my case. They not give me justice. They were make same decision like Torture Claims Appeal Board / Director of Immigration. My life still have threating in my Home Country. I request please grant my case for safety of my life. I also take care my wife medical record also attached.” [1] 5. As mentioned above, the applicant failed to lodge his written submissions in support of his appeal.

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 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)].

8. We see no merit in his contentions. Nowhere in his Notice of Appeal did the applicant identify any error committed by the Judge with specific particulars or give any ground in support of his appeal. His assertions are in any event general and bare allegations unsupported by particulars or evidence, and general assertions of fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6]. We see no basis to interfere with the Leave Decision.

9. Accordingly, the applicant’s appeal against the Leave Decision has no merit and is dismissed. (Thomas Au) Justice of Appeal (Yvonne Cheng) Judge of the Court of First Instance The applicant acting in person [1] No medical record was attached to the Notice of Appeal.