RE ABDUR RAHMAN

CACV 499/2018

[2019] HKCA 532

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 499 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1108 OF 2017)

________________

________________

_____________________

J U D G M E N T

_____________________

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

1)  The appeal

1.1   This is an appeal by the applicant against the decision of Campbell-Moffat J given on 28 September 2018 in which she refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review against the decisions of the Director of Immigration and the Torture Claims Appeal Board.

1.2   The applicant did not comply with the directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals of 20 November 2018 and did not lodge any skeleton submission.  The original hearing fixed for 7 May 2019 was hence vacated, and the applicant’s appeal is now being considered on paper.

2)  Factual background

2.1   The applicant is a national of Bangladesh. He entered Hong Kong illegally on 5 April 2008.  He raised a non‑refoulement claim on 26 April 2008.

2.2   The basis of the applicant’s claim is that he is an active member of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party and he would be harmed or killed by Akkel, a member of the rival Awami League.

2.3   The background facts have been summarized in the decision of the Judge at [4]-[6].

3)  The Director’s Decision

3. The Director decided against the applicant’s torture claim on 21 April 2017.  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 (‘the Director’s Decision’).

4)  The Board’s Decision

4.1   The applicant appealed against the Director’s Decision to the Board on 4 May 2017.  After a hearing held on 22 September 2017, the Board dismissed the applicant’s appeal on 1 December 2017 (‘the Board’s Decision’).

4.2   The Board found that the applicant’s animosity with Akkel was mainly personal and quite apart from their respective political affiliations.  The Board was not convinced by the applicant’s submissions that the local police supported the Awami League.

5)  Decision of the Judge

5.   The Judge held that according to the evidence filed by the applicant, there were no grounds for judicial review.  She had, nevertheless, considered the papers carefully, and had not found any error of law or procedure throughout.

6)  Grounds of appeal

6.   The applicant in the notice of appeal filed on 4 October 2018 referred to his supporting affirmation pages for his grounds of appeal.  In his supporting affirmation’s cover page, the applicant complained that the Judge was wrong in law in holding there was no state acquiescence.  He complained that the Judge did not provide detailed reasons.  He referred to an exhibit to his supporting affirmation, the contents of which were all complaints not against the Judge, but against the Board.

7)  Our view

7.1   It is trite that in an appeal against a refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in non-refoulement cases, the Court of Appeal will only examine the decision of the Judge in light of the grounds advanced by the applicant.  If no viable ground is put forward, the appeal should be dismissed: Re Litoun Mounsy [2018] HKCA 537 at [11]; Re Tutul [2018] HKCA 552 at [15]; and Re Islam Rafiqul [2018] HKCA 570 at [14].

7.2   The applicant has provided no viable grounds of appeal against the decision of the Judge.  The alleged grounds in the applicant’s notice of appeal are bare allegations.  There is no merit in the applicant’s appeal. 

7.3   Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.