|
CACV 203/2025, [2025] HKCA 915
On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 1493
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 203 OF 2025
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 3745 OF 2019)
________________________
| RE: |
HAKEEM FAZAL |
Applicant |
________________________
| Before: |
Hon Cheung JA and Cheng J in Court |
| Date of Judgment: |
31 October 2025 |
________________________
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 Philips Wong of 10 April 2025 by which the Judge refused to grant him leave to apply for judicial review.
2. This appeal was scheduled to be heard on 17 September 2025. Despite the directions from the Court to the applicant dated 29 July 2025 (‘Directions’), the applicant failed to lodge written submission by the stipulated time. Accordingly, by [4] of the Directions, the hearing of the appeal was vacated and the Court will now deal with this appeal on paper.
2) Background
3. The applicant is a national of Pakistan. He entered Hong Kong illegally on 4 May 2016 and he subsequently surrendered to the Immigration Department on 20 May 2016. He lodged a non-refoulement claim on 20 October 2016[1].
4. The basis of the applicant’s claim is that he would be harmed or killed by people from the Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) (‘PML(N)’) if he returned[2].
5. The background facts have been summarized in the Board’s Decision at [1]-[12].
3) The Director’s Decisions
6. The Director of Immigration (‘the Director’) decided against the applicant’s non-refoulement claim on 25 October 2018. The decision covered Bill of Rights Article 2 (right to life) risk, Bill of Rights Article 3 (torture/inhuman treatment) risk 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/petitioned against the Director’s Decision to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (‘the Board’)[4]. After a hearing held on 13 September 2019[5], the Board dismissed the applicant’s appeal on 25 October 2019 (‘the Board’s Decision’).
8. The Board’s finding is in the Board’s Decision at [37] - [77].
5) Decision of the Judge
9. The applicant filed his Form 86 but no grounds were provided. In his supporting affirmation, the applicant relied on matters that were summarized by the Judge[6]. See the decision of the Judge at [7].
10. The Judge held that the allegation that the Board was unfair was vague without particulars. He held that the allegation that more time was required was without merit, as at no time before the Board had the applicant stated that he needed more time. He held that the Board correctly applied the principles regarding whether there was state acquiescence. He held that the applicant failed to show how the Board had overlooked the evidence, or demonstrated an unfair attitude towards him. He held that he could not detect any error of law in the Board’s Decision. See the decision of the Judge at [8] - [16].
6) Grounds of appeal
11. The applicant in the notice of appeal stated the following :
‘ The High Court did not consider my JR. Adjudicator did not give me correct decision. His decision is full of wrong. Please grant my leave.’
7) Our view
12. We are of the view that the applicant’s appeal is without merits. The 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].
13. 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.
14. We see no basis to disturb the Judge’s decision. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
| (Peter Cheung) |
(Yvonne Cheng) |
| Justice of Appeal |
Judge of the
Court of First Instance |
Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person
[1] Director’s Decision (25 October 2018) at [7];
[2] Ibid at [2];
[3] Ibid at [8]-[10];
[4] Board’s Decision at [15];
[5] Board’s Decision at [16];
[6] Form CALL-1 at [7];
|