RE ALI QASIM

CACV 210/2025, [2025] HKCA 916

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 1260

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 210 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 3692 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________________

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 11 April 2025 by in which he 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 [5] 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 9 April 2009 and was arrested on the same day.  He lodged a torture claim on 12 April 2009, and the claim was rejected on 10 May 2013.  He then lodged a non - refoulement claim on 8 October 2013[1].

4.  The basis of the applicant’s claim is that he would be harmed or killed by Ilyas Qadri, people from Jamaat  -  e - Islami (‘J - I’), people from Lashkar  -  e - Jhangvi (‘LeJ’)  and people from Jamaat  -  ul - Ahrar (‘JuA’)  if he returns to Pakistan[2]. The applicant is a Shia Muslim.  Ilyas Qadri is a Sunni Muslim and belonged to J - I which is a political group protected by LeJ and JuA.  Ilyas Qadri accused him of being disrespectful to his religion.

5.  The background facts have been summarized in the Board’s Decision at [15].

3)  The Director’s Decisions

6.  The Director of Immigration (‘the Director’)  decided against the applicant’s torture claim on 10 May 2013.

7.  The Director of Immigration (‘the Director’)  decided against the applicant’s non-refoulement claim on 29 November 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 persecution except for torture[3] (‘the Director’s Decision’).

4)  The Board’s Decision

8.  The applicant appealed/petitioned against the Director’s Decision (29 November 2018)  to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (‘the Board’)[4]. After a hearing held on 24 October 2019[5], the Board dismissed the applicant’s appeal on 29 November 2019 (‘the Board’s Decision’).

9.  The Board’s finding is in the Board’s Decision at [16]-[44].

5)  Decision of the Judge

10.  The applicant filed his Form 86 and affirmation but in his Form 86, no grounds were provided. In his supporting affirmation, the applicant barely alleged the Board’s Decision was Wednesbury unreasonable without further elaboration[6].

11.  The Judge held that it could not find any error of law in the Board’s Decision.  He agreed with the Board’s observation that the applicant’s conduct is consistent with someone coming to Hong Kong to seek employment rather than protection.  The applicant’s intended challenge has no reasonable prospect of success.  See the decision of the Judge at [6]-[9].

6)  Grounds of appeal

12.  The applicant in the notice of appeal stated the following :

‘ I am writing my grounds regarding my important request is my life problem because in my country my life is not safety at this moment I start my life in Hong Kong to spend my peaceful life Therefore I married in Hong Kong in my oral hearing I will explain to honourable judges in my oral hearing.’

7)  Our view

13.  We are of the view that the applicant’s appeal is without merits.  The grounds of appeal consist of bare allegation 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.