RE ZUNAIR TEHSEEN QAMAR

CACV 638/2026, [2026] HKCA 1488

On appeal from [2026] HKCFI 3214

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 638 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 8/2023)

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

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

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

Hon Barma JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is an appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Philips Wong (“the Judge”) given on 5 June 2026[1] (“the Leave Decision”) refusing to grant leave for the applicant to apply for judicial review.  The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/adjudicator of the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 14 December 2022 (“the Board’s Decision”) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 4 September 2020 rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

2.  The applicant’s background, the basis of his claim and the Board’s reasons in reaching the Board’s Decision have been set out therein[2] as well as by the Judge in the Leave Decision at [5], which will not be repeated. 

3.  The applicant was absent at the hearing of the leave application.  After considering the documents filed by the applicant, the Judge dismissed the application for the reasons stated at [6]-[10] of the Leave Decision. 

Appeal to this court

4.  In a Notice of Appeal dated 15 June 2026, the applicant stated, without elaboration nor particulars, that the “decisions are unlawful”, “the decisions failed to take into account many things and issues”, and that his life will be in danger upon refoulement.

5.  In his written submissions dated 20 July 2026, the applicant, insofar as his complaints related to the Board’s Decision, submitted that the Board failed to make sufficient enquiries before finalising its Decision, and that it failed to take into consideration the fact that torture claimants such as the applicant has limited “options at his disposal” to obtain evidence for the purpose of the hearing of his claim.

6.  The applicant was absent at the hearing of the appeal on 6 August 2026.  We will therefore determine the appeal on paper and on the basis of the matters set out in the documents lodged with the court.

Discussion

7.  As this court has often stated, an appeal to the Court of Appeal is not a fresh application for judicial review.  It is necessary to identify some error on the part of the judge that would justify this court in intervening: see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14].  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.  An appeal is not the occasion for regurgitating arguments advanced and rejected by the judge or for running arguments which could and should have been raised but were not raised before the judge.  In the determination of an appeal, the Court of Appeal focuses on the decision of the judge and the court will only reverse that decision if an appellant could demonstrate that the judge made errors of law or failed to take account of relevant matters already placed before the court or was otherwise plainly wrong.

8.  The applicant has failed to identify any error on the part of the Judge and thus failed to raise any viable ground of appeal.  The points advanced by the applicant were bare assertions unsupported by particulars or evidence.

9.  In the present case, the Board found the applicant’s evidence to be vague and lacking in detail on the material parts of his claim.  The Board also found as a matter of fact that, inter alia, the applicant has never been physically harmed by his enemies in Pakistan nor do they have the power and resources to locate the applicant anywhere in Pakistan.  These were factual findings open to the Board on the evidence, and were sufficiently canvassed and considered by the Judge in the Leave Decision at [6]-[10].  We see no basis to interfere.

10.  The applicant has accordingly failed to demonstrate how the Board had acted unlawfully or procedurally unfairly in reaching its Decision, or how such Decision could be said to be Wednesbury unreasonable.

11.  As we have noted, the applicant advanced no viable grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision.  There is therefore no merit in the appeal and we dismiss the appeal accordingly.