RE HARIS MOHAMMED

CACV 278/2024, [2024] HKCA 980

On Appeal From [2024] HKCFI 1725

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 278 OF 2024

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1465 OF 2019)

-----------------------

-----------------------

-----------------------

JUDGMENT

-----------------------

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 (‘the Judge’) of 4 July 2024 in which he refused to grant leave to him to apply for judicial review.

2.  This appeal was scheduled to be heard on 15 October 2024. Despite the directions from the High Court to the applicant dated 13 August 2024, the applicant failed to lodge skeleton argument by the stipulated time. Accordingly the Court informed the applicant by letter dated 23 September 2024 that the hearing would be vacated and the Court would deal with this appeal on paper.

2) Background

3.  The applicant is a national of Bangladesh. He was arrested by the police in May 2014 for being an illegal immigrant. On 1 June 2014, the applicant made a non-refoulement claim[1].

4.  The basis of the applicant’s claim is that he would be harmed or killed by members of the Awami League because he supported the rival political party[2].

5.  The background facts have been summarized in the decision of the Judge at [2] to [5].

3) The Director’s Decision

6.  The Director of Immigration (‘the Director’) decided against the applicant’s non-refoulement claim on 7 April 2017. The decision covered Bill of Rights Article 2 (right to life) risk (‘BOR 2’), Bill of Rights Article 3 (torture/inhuman treatment) risk (‘BOR 3’), as well as other statutory and convention rights against torture and persecution[3] (‘the Director’s Decision’).

4) The Board’s Decision

7.  The applicant appealed against the Director’s Decision to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (‘the Board’)[4]. After a hearing held on 12 November 2018, the Board dismissed the applicant’s appeal on 24 May 2019 (‘the Board’s Decision’).

8.  The Board’s finding is summarized in the decision of the Judge at [8] to [9].

5) Decision of the Judge

9.  The applicant filed his Form 86 and affirmation and set out various grounds for judicial review, see the decision of the Judge at [10].

10.  The Judge held that the grounds set out by the applicant are broad and vague assertions without any necessary particulars as to how they apply to the applicant’s case. The Board rejected the applicant’s case based on adverse finding on credibility. There is no error of law or procedural unfairness in the Board’s Decision. See the decision of the Judge at [11]-[16].

6) Grounds of appeal

11.  The applicant in the notice of appeal stated that :

‘ And further take notice that the grounds of this appeal are that the Plaintiff will face hardship if he is to return back to his home country and that the Torture Claims Appeal Board has significantly relied on the source of news which is not officially recognized, or it is simply hearsay. They have also relied on some cases which are outdated considering the dramatic changes. The lack of credible source of information has resulted in them making groundless speculations.’

12.  We take the view that these are bare allegations with no further explanation as to how it is helpful to the applicant’s appeal.

7) Our view

13.  We are of the view that the applicant’s appeal is without merits. His grounds of appeal consist of bare allegations without particulars or specifics. The applicant provided no reasonably arguable grounds for judicial review. An appeal against refusal of leave for judicial review is not an occasion for the applicant to regurgitate arguments already advanced. 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].

14.  It is thus incumbent on the applicant to point out with sufficient particularity the errors allegedly committed by the Judge in assessing the Board’s Decision. None of the arguments raised by the applicant shows the Judge has made any error of law.

15.  We see no basis to disturb the Judge’s decision.  Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.