|
CACV 24/2025, [2025] HKCA 572
On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 79
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 24 OF 2025
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1725 OF 2024)
________________________
________________________
| Before : |
Hon Cheung JA and Andrew Chan J in Court |
| Date of Judgment : |
30 June 2025 |
_____________
JUDGMENT
_____________
Hon Andrew Chan J (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 KW Lung of 3 January 2025 in which he refused to grant leave to him to apply for judicial review.
2. Despite the directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals dated 22 April 2025, the applicant failed to lodge the skeleton argument by the stipulated time. Accordingly, the Court would deal with this appeal on paper based on the documents available.
2) Background
3. The applicant is a national of Pakistan. He entered Hong Kong illegally in February 2024. He lodged a non-refoulement claim in May 2024 in writing[1].
4. The basis of the applicant’s claim is that if he returns he would be harmed or killed by his paternal cousin Jawad because of a land dispute[2].
5. The background facts have been summarized in the decision of the Judge at [3]-[6].
3) The Director’s Decision
6. The Director of Immigration (‘the Director’) decided against the applicant’s claim on 4 July 2024. The decision covered Bill of Rights Article 3 (torture/inhuman treatment) risk (‘BOR 3’), Bill of Rights Article 2 (right to life) risk (‘BOR 2’) 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 against the Director’s Decision to the Torture Claims Appeal Board[4]. After a hearing held on 10 September 2024, the Board dismissed the applicant’s appeal on 20 September 2024 (‘the Board’s Decision’).
8. The Board’s findings are summarized in the decision of the Judge at [9]-[12].
5) Decision of the Judge
9. The applicant filed his Form 86 and affirmation, but the documents contain mostly bare assertions without any evidence in support[5].
10. The Judge held that there was no valid ground to challenge the Board’s decision. There was no reason to interfere with the Board’s findings. There was no realistic prospect of success in the intended judicial review[6].
6) Grounds of appeal
11. The applicant in the notice of appeal stated that :
‘I am disagree with the decision maker authorities. The decision made by the Director of Immigration as well as decision made by the Torture Claim Appeal Board. I do not think my case determined fairly.’
7) Our view
12. We are of the view that the applicant’s appeal is without merits. His 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)
Justice of Appeal
|
(Andrew Chan)
Judge of the
Court of First Instance
|
The applicant, unrepresented, acting in person
[1] Director’s Decision at [7];
[2] Director’s Decision at [2];
[3] Director’s decision [8]-[9];
[4] Board’s Decision at [5];
[5] Judge’s decision at [13], [14], [18];
[6] Judge’s decision at [19]-[21];
|