|
CACV 534/2026, [2026] HKCA 1268
On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 2806
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 534 OF 2026
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 787 OF 2022)
________________________
BETWEEN
|
AFAQ MALIK |
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
|
TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
|
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 To (“the Judge”) dated 18 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 12 August 2022 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board
dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”)
dated 30 June 2021.
2. The Applicant alleges that, if refouled to Pakistan, he will
be harmed or killed by his paternal uncles because they want to take over a family land entirely for themselves
to the exclusion of other family members[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 §§2-10 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 §§12-27 of the CALL-1 Form. In gist, the Judge held that none of the Applicant’s
complaints or grounds advanced for seeking relief could be substantiated. The Judge also found no valid
basis to interfere with the Board’s Decision on any public law grounds.
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, the Board and the Judge. He alleges that his
father was shot on 14 January 2026 and he cannot go back to his home country because his life is not safe there.
5. In his written submissions lodged on 18 June 2026, the
Applicant alleges, 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. The Applicant did not appear at the hearing of the appeal.
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. His allegation about the shooting incident
of his father was considered and dealt with by the Judge at §14 of his decision. In any event, the Board
found that even if the Applicant would face any risk of harm or ill-treatment from his uncles upon refoulment,
there would be state protection and reasonable options of internal relocation available to him to lower or
negate such risk (see §§63 and 81-90 of the Board’s Decision). The Applicant’s allegation about his
father’s shooting incident does not assist his appeal.
10. The allegations raised in the Applicant’s written
submissions mainly concern the assessment of evidence, COI and state protection by the Director and the Board,
and are matters within their province. They do not give rise to any valid grounds of appeal against the
Judge’s decision.
11. The Applicant has failed to raise any viable ground of
appeal against the Order.
12. 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 was not represented and did not appear
[1] See §§8, 32 and 39(a) and (b) 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.
|