|
CACV 614/2026, [2026] HKCA 1398
On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 3231
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 614 OF 2026
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 536 OF 2021)
________________________
BETWEEN
|
ABBAS SYED SHUJAHAT |
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
|
TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
|
Putative Respondent
|
|
and
|
|
|
DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
|
Putative Interested Party
|
_____________________
| Before: |
Hon Anthony Chan JA and Ng J in Court |
| Date of Judgment: |
12 August 2026 |
________________________
JUDGMENT
________________________
Hon Ng J (giving the Judgment of the Court):
INTRODUCTION
1. This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of DHCJ To
(“the Judge”) dated 5 June 2026 (“the Order”) refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review
of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”)
dated 5 March 2021 (“the Board’s Decision”).
BACKGROUND
2. The Applicant is a national of Pakistan. The Applicant lodged
a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by members of the
Sipah-e-Sahaba group because of political enmity. The Applicant’s claim was rejected by the Director of
Immigration (“the Director”) on 13 December 2018, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was
rejected by the Board on 5 March 2021. Details of the Applicant’s claim and the Board’s reasons for rejecting
the Applicant’s appeal can be found in the Board’s Decision, the hyperlink to which can be found in the CALL-1
Form dated 5 June 2026.[1]
3. The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial
review was refused by the Judge on 5 June 2026. Details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can
be found in the CALL-1 Form.
GROUNDS OF APPEAL
4. In the Notice of Appeal filed on 10 June 2026, the Applicant
states the following that:
“I want to apply judicial review against my ORDER because I am not satisfied with my ORDER.”
(sic)
5. The Applicant has failed to lodge written submissions in
support of the appeal in accordance with the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on or before 14
July 2026. Accordingly, the Applicant is deemed to have waived the right to have an oral hearing of the appeal
and elected to have the appeal disposed of on paper. Having considered the documents before us, we consider that
it is appropriate to deal with the Applicant’s appeal on paper without an oral hearing.
LEGAL PRINCIPLES
6. 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)).
7. The assessment of evidence, country of origin information,
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.
DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION
8. The matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal are
all general allegations without particulars. They do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the
Judge’s decision.
9. The Applicant has failed to identify or show any error in the
Judge’s decision refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review, or raise any viable ground of appeal
against the Order.
10. The Applicant’s appeal has no merit, and is dismissed.
(Anthony Chan)
Justice of Appeal |
(Peter Ng)
Judge of the Court of
FirstInstance |
The Applicant, acting in person
[1] Hyperlink
to the Board’s Decision in CALL-1 Form, §3
|