|
CACV 535/2026, [2026] HKCA 1277
On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 2790
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 535 OF 2026
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1466 OF 2025)
________________________
BETWEEN
|
AHMAD HASHIR |
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
|
TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD
|
Putative Respondent
|
|
and
|
|
|
DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
|
Putative Interested Party
|
________________________
| Before: |
Hon Chow JA and Mimmie Chan J in Court |
| Date of Hearing: |
14 July 2026 |
| Date of Judgment: |
4 August 2026 |
________________
J U D G M E N T
________________
Hon Chow JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy
High Court Judge K W Lung (“the Judge”) dated 20 May 2026 (“the Order”) refusing to grant leave to
the Applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement
Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 16 June 2025 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the
Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the
Director”) dated 10 February 2025.
2. The Applicant alleges that, if refouled to Pakistan, he will
be harmed or killed by the family members of a victim (Yastoor) who died in a traffic accident involving the
Applicant’s father, and they intended to take revenge on him. The Applicant says that the victim’s family
members are rich, and have contact with the politicians of the Pakistan-Tehreek-e-Insaf, of which they are
active supporters[1]. The Applicant’s background,
the basis of his claim, the findings of the Board and its reasons for dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against
the Director’s decision have been set out in detail in the Board’s Decision, and summarised by the Judge in his
decision (see §§5, 6, 9 and 10 of the CALL-1 Form). We do not propose to repeat them here.
3. The Judge’s reasons for dismissing the Applicant’s leave
application are set out at §§14-18 of the CALL-1 Form. In gist, the Judge held that the intended grounds
for judicial review put forth by the Applicant were all bare assertions and did not give rise to any valid
ground of challenge to the Board’s findings, and the Applicant had failed to show any realistic prospect of
success in his intended judicial review of the Board’s Decision.
THIS APPEAL
4. In his Notice of Appeal filed on 26 May 2026, the Applicant
states that he disagrees with the decisions of the Director and the Board, and alleges that they did not
investigate his claim properly. He also complains that his case was not determined fairly.
5. In his written submissions lodged on 18 June 2026, the
Applicant asserts, amongst other matters, the following:
(1) The decisions of Director and/or the Board were unreasonable, unfair and irrational, and were
a result of procedural errors[2].
(2) The Director failed to appreciate or give proper importance or weight to the presence of state
acquiescence[3].
(3) The Board acted unreasonably and in a procedurally unfair manner by placing too much reliance
on country of origin information (“COI”) without taking into account his personal circumstances[4].
(4) The Director failed to consider or properly consider relevant COI which showed that state
protection would not be available to him in his home country[5].
(5) The Board relied on unofficial materials without properly investigating his claim[6].
6. At the hearing of the appeal, the Applicant said that he
needed more time to secure himself or make arrangements to go to another country.
DISCUSSION
7. In an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial
review in non-refoulement cases, the Court of Appeal would 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 of Appeal’s role is not to examine the Board’s decision afresh
as if it was a fresh application for judicial review (see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at §14(6)).
8. Further, the assessment of evidence, COI, risk of harm, state
protection and viability of internal relocation are primarily within the province of the Board and the
Director. 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: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022, at §13. No such error of law or procedural unfairness or
irrationality in the decision of the Board is shown in the present case.
9. The matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal and
written submissions are all general assertions without particulars, and mainly concern the assessment of
evidence, COI and state protection by the Director and the Board, which are matters within their province.
They do not give rise to any valid grounds of appeal against the decision of the Judge.
10. The Applicant has failed to raise any viable ground of
appeal against the Order.
11. The Applicant’s appeal has no merits, and is dismissed.
(Anderson Chow)
Justice of Appeal |
(Mimmie Chan)
Judge of the Court of First Instance |
The Applicant, appearing in person
[1] See §15(k)-(v) of the Board’s
Decision.
[2] See §§2 and 9-11 of the Applicant’s
written submissions.
[3] See §§3-6 of the Applicant’s written
submissions.
[4] See §7 of the Applicant’s written
submissions.
[5] See §§7 and 8 of the Applicant’s
written submissions.
[6] See §12 of the Applicant’s written
submissions.
|