Re Mohammed Firoz

CACV 480/2026, [2026] HKCA 1186 On appeal from [2026] HKCFI 2363

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO 480 OF 2026 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 210/2022) ----------------------------------- RE:

MOHAMMED FIROZ Applicant ----------------------------------- Before: Hon Barma JA and Mimmie Chan J in Court Date of Hearing: 2 July 2026 Date of Judgment: 16 July 2026 _______

J U D G M E N T _______ Hon Barma JA (giving the Judgment of the Court): 1. This is an appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Philips Wong (“the Judge”) given on 29 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 1 March 2022 (“the Board’s Decision”) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 3 January 2019 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] , which will not be repeated.

3. After considering the documents filed by the applicant as well as the oral submissions he made at the hearing of the leave application, the Judge dismissed the application for the reasons stated at [6]-[10] of the Leave Decision. Appeal to this court 4. In a Notice of Appeal dated 11 May 2026, the applicant stated inter alia that his life would still be in danger should he be refouled, and he asked that this court permit him to remain in Hong Kong for “at least 4-5 years”.

5. In his written submissions dated 9 June 2026, the applicant contended (without elaboration or particulars) that his case had not been determined fairly by the Board. He also complained that he was prejudiced by the lack of language and legal assistance in the proceedings below.

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.

9. In the present case, by reason of the inconsistencies in the material parts of the applicant’s evidence, the Board found the applicant to be an incredible witness and thus rejected outright the relevant factual accounts on which his claim, and his alleged fear of harm, was based. These were findings open to the Board on the evidence, and were sufficiently canvassed and considered by the Judge in the Leave Decision. 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. We are unpersuaded by the applicant’s complaint of prejudice caused by his lack of legal representation. As this court has repeatedly held, it does not follow that the high standards of fairness applicable require that a non-refoulement protection claimant be absolutely entitled to legal representation at all stages of the screening process or the legal proceedings ensuing therefrom. See Re Zunariyah [2018] HKCA 14 , Re Zahid Abbas [2018] HKCA 15 , Re Tariq Farhan [2018] HKCA 17 , Re Lopchan Subash [2018] HKCA 37 and Re Ahmed Syed Rafiq [2018] HKCA 178 .

12. We are equally unpersuaded by the applicant’s complaint as to the apparent lack of language assistance, as he was clearly able (whether by himself or with the assistance of others) to lodge comprehensible English documents and submissions with the court and in the processing of his claim below.

13. 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. (Aarif Barma) (Mimmie Chan) Justice of Appeal Judge of the Court of First Instance The applicant, unrepresented, absent [1] [2026] HKCFI 2363 [2] https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2022/HCAL000210_2022_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf