|
CACV 1003/2025, [2026] HKCA 1437
On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 5066
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 1003 OF 2025
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2750 OF 2019)
_____________________
BETWEEN
|
HASSAN IFTIKHAR UL
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
|
TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
|
Putative Respondent
|
|
and
|
|
|
DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
|
Putative Interested Party
|
_____________________
| Before: |
Hon Poon CJHC and Ng J in Court |
| Date of Hearing: |
12 August 2026 |
| Date of Judgment: |
2 September 2026 |
_____________________
JUDGMENT
_____________________
The Court:
INTRODUCTION
1. This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of DHCJ To
(“the Judge”) dated 28 October 2025 (“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 16 August 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”).
BACKGROUND
2. The Applicant is a national of Pakistan. The Applicant
previously lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by his
enemy over a land dispute. The Applicant’s claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”)
on 18 April 2017, and the appeal against the Director’s
decision was rejected by the Board on 16 August 2019. 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 28 October 2025.
3. The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial
review was refused by the Judge on 28 October 2025. 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 11 November 2025, the
Applicant argues that he was prejudiced in the proceedings below by reason of a lack of language and legal
assistance, and the Judge failed to apply procedural fairness to verify if he had been served with the
Director’s invitation letter to submit further information to support his claim. The Applicant also
complains that the Judge did not apply the standard of anxious scrutiny and misapplied the Wednesbury
test. There was no detailed analysis and the Judge erred in confining the scope of review only to the
Board’s Decision.
5. In the skeleton argument filed on 9 July 2026, the Applicant
simply sets out the chronology of events in relation to his non-refoulement claim, and complains about the
Judge’s failure to verify the non-receipt of the Director’s invitation letter for further information. The
Applicant additionally argues that there was inadequate scrutiny of his BOR 2 risk claim.
6. The appeal was heard on 12 August 2026. The Applicant
attended the hearing in person with the assistance of an Urdu interpreter and confirmed that he had nothing
further to add.
LEGAL PRINCIPLES
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. 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
9. Regarding the lack
of legal and language assistance, it has been repeatedly emphasised by
this Court that as a matter of law, a non-refoulement claimant is not entitled to free legal representation at
all stages of the process and that the high standard of fairness required by law does not entail interpretation
service being made available to an applicant all the time as he desires: Re Pante Luisa
Tuppil [2025] HKCA 1123 at [11].
10. The matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal and
skeleton argument are all general allegations without particulars. They do not constitute any valid grounds of
appeal against the Judge’s decision.
11. 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.
12. The Applicant’s appeal has no merit, and is dismissed.
(Jeremy Poon)
Chief Judge of the
High Court |
(Peter Ng)
Judge of the Court of
First Instance |
The Applicant, acting in person
|