RE SYED IMTAZ UDDIN AHMED

CACV 303/2026, [2026] HKCA 1240 On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 454

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO 303 OF 2026 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 600 OF 2021) ___ RE:

SYED IMTAZ UDDIN AHMED Applicant ___ Before: Hon Au JA and Eugene Fung 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 (Non-refoulement Claims) Val Chow (“ the Judge ”) dated 17 March 2026 ( [2026] HKCFI 454 ) (“ the Leave Decision ”) refusing 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 25 March 2021 (“ the Board’s Decision ”), whereby the Board dismissed his appeal/petition against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“ the Director ”) dated 31 May 2018 (“ the Director’s Decision ”), refusing his non‑refoulement claim.

2. This appeal was scheduled to be heard on 27 May 2026. Despite the directions from the Court to the applicant dated 25 March 2026 (“ Directions ”), the applicant failed to lodge written submission 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 India. The basis of his non‑refoulement claim is, if refouled, he will be killed by members of a gang if he returns to his home country because he witnessed two murders involving members of that gang which took place in late 2000. The applicant’s background, the basis of his claim and his 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 [4] of the Leave Decision. The Judge also sets out in detail his reasons for refusing the Leave Application: see [5] ‑ [14] of the Leave Decision. We will not repeat the details herein.

4. By the Notice of Appeal filed on 25 March 2026, the applicant asserted: “I am disagree with the Judgment given by the Court of First Instance. The discriminatory act of Respondent’s towards Non-refoulement claimants merely on the basis of quick disposed of Non-refoulement cases is unacceptable and is determinate to the spirit of judicial system. The respondent’s failed to meet the greater care and duty owed to a self-represented claimants.” 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 mainly directed at the Board’s Decision, and are in any event general and bare allegations unsupported by specific particulars or evidence. They do not constitute viable grounds of appeal. 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 (Eugene Fung) Judge of the Court of First Instance The applicant acting in person