|
CACV 131/2023, [2023] HKCA 886
On Appeal From [2023] HKCFI 551
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 131 OF 2023
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 955 OF 2018)
____________________
| RE: |
HUSSAIN KHALID |
Applicant |
____________________
| Before : |
Hon Cheung JA and Anthony Chan J in Court |
| Date of Judgment : |
21 July 2023 |
____________________
J U D G M E N T
____________________
Hon Cheung JA (giving the Judgment of the Court) :
1) The appeal
1. This is an appeal by the applicant against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan of 19 April 2023 in which he refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review.
2. This appeal was scheduled to be heard on 18 July 2023. Despite the directions contained in the letter from the High Court to the applicant dated 31 May 2023, the applicant failed to lodge the skeleton argument by the stipulated time. Accordingly the Court informed the applicant by letter dated 26 June 2023 that the hearing would be vacated and the Court would deal with this appeal on paper.
2) Factual background
3. The applicant is a national of Pakistan. The applicant illegally entered Hong Kong. He was arrested by the police on 31 December 2008. He made a torture claim on 2 January 2009. The claim has then expanded to include non‑refoulement protection on all available grounds.
4. The basis of the applicant’s claim is that he would be harmed or killed by his maternal uncle Muhammad Azam (‘MA’) because he refused to marry his daughter Bano. He says that MA is friendly with politicians and local police officers.
5. The background facts have been summarized in the decision of the Judge at [2]-[4].
3) The Director’s Decision
6. The Director of Immigration (‘the Director’) decided against the applicant’s non-refoulement claim on 9 March 2015. The decision covered Bill of Rights Article 3 (torture/inhuman treatment) risk (‘BOR 3’), as well as other statutory and convention rights against persecution and torture (‘the Director’s Decision’).
7. The Director by a further decision dated 25 May 2017 (‘the Director’s Further Decision’) rejected the applicant’s claim for right to life under Article 2 of the Bill of Rights (‘BOR 2’).
4) The Board’s Decision
8. The applicant appealed/petitioned against the Director’s Decision to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (‘the Board’) on 20 March 2015. After a hearing held on 25 January 2018 where the applicant was absent without reasonable explanation, the Board dismissed the applicant’s appeal on 14 May 2018 (‘the Board’s Decision’).
9. The Board held that the applicant failed to establish his case on all applicable grounds. It held that the applicant was able to leave Pakistan without interference from the government. There was no threat of harm instigated by the government against the applicant. The applicant was not assaulted by anyone acting on behalf of the government. The Board did not accept that MA was interested in locating the applicant. The applicant was living safely in Pakistan for three years before he decided to leave Pakistan. The applicant had not suffered any serious injury or harm.
5) Decision of the Judge
10. The applicant filed his Form 86 and supporting affirmation. No proper grounds of his intended appeal were provided. Before his application was heard by the Judge, the applicant filed another application to withdraw his application. The Court on 13 January 2020 allowed his withdrawal. However in November 2022, the applicant filed another application to request that his application be re‑opened. The Judge directed that the action be reinstated for determination on the merits.
11. The Judge held that there was no valid reason by the applicant to challenge the Board’s decision. There was no proper ground for the applicant’s intended challenge. The Judge did not find any error of law or procedural irregularity in the Board’s Decision.
6) Grounds of appeal
12. The applicant in the notice of appeal did not provide any grounds of appeal.
7) Our view
13. We are of the view that the applicant’s appeal is without merits. The applicant provided no reasonably arguable grounds for judicial review. The Court of Appeal would only reverse the decision of the Judge if it could be demonstrated that there were errors in law, that the Judge failed to take into account relevant matters, or the decision was otherwise plainly wrong : see United Muslim Association of Hong Kong v Yusuf Yu [2018] HKCA 451 at [38] and [39]. None has been identified by the applicant.
14. We see no basis to disturb the Deputy Judge’s decision. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
(Peter Cheung)
Justice of Appeal |
(Anthony Chan)
Judge of the Court
of First Instance |
| Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person |
|