RE JAVED MUHAMMAD

CACV 550/2025, [2026] HKCA 641

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 2804

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 550 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 3191 OF 2019)

__________________

__________________

__________________

JUDGMENT

__________________

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

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung dated 22 July 2025 ([2025] HKCFI 2804) (‘the Leave Decision’) refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review (‘the Leave Application’) against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (‘the Board’) dated 18 October 2019 (‘the Board’s Decision’), whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (‘the Director’) dated 26 March 2018, refusing his non-refoulement claim other than torture risk which was previously disposed of[1].

2.  The applicant’s background, the basis of his claim and arguments advanced before the Board as well as the Board’s reasons for rejecting his appeal are all set out in the Board’s Decision: see [4]-[6], [9]-[10] of the Leave Decision[2].

3.  The applicant claimed that he entered Hong Kong illegally in February 2009 from the Mainland and was arrested in May 2009. He shortly made a torture claim in the same month. He however withdrew such torture claim in December 2012. He requested to re-open the case in January 2013, but was rejected in March 2013. His claim for non-refoulement in March and April 2013 was then assessed on other applicable grounds other than torture risk. The basis of his claim is that if he returned to Pakistan, he would be harmed or killed by his enemies because they were taking revenge from the applicant for harming their nephew[3].

4.  The Judge sets out his reasons for refusing the Leave Application: see [11]-[18] of the Leave Decision. We will not repeat the details herein.

5.  By the Notice of Appeal filed on 28 July 2025, the applicant stated the following :

‘ I am the applicant here in the decision made by Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung has been reached unfairly without membering given me the opportunity to clarify my case and the situation in my country.’

6.  In his written submissions, the applicant stated the following in summary :

1) The Director and the Board’s decisions were not reasonable and fair as required by the Wednesbury test;

2) The applicant may face extra judicial killing if refouled and he must be protected under BOR 2 right to life;

3) The Director failed to pay attention to state acquiescence leading to unfair outcome;

4) The Adjudicator acted unreasonable and was procedurally unfair by placing too much reliance on country of origin information;

5) The Director failed to take such argument into account; and

6) The Adjudicator’s decision was irrational.

7.  In Court, the applicant said he is now married and has a child.

I. Discussion

8.  The relevant legal principles governing appeals in non-refoulement cases are set out in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14].

9.  In particular, in an appeal against 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 to reverse the judge’s decision, the appeal should be dismissed. The Court’s role is not to examine the decision maker’s decision afresh as if it were a fresh application for judicial review. See Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14(6)].

10.  In light of the above, it is thus incumbent on the applicant to point out the errors in the Leave Decision with sufficient particulars and specifics.

11.  However, nowhere in his Notice of Appeal or submissions did the applicant identify any error committed by the Judge with specific particulars. His assertions are all general, bare and vague allegations unsupported by specific particulars or evidence. General assertions of his fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6]. The Court will not usurp the role of the Board. Assessment of evidence, country of origin information materials, risk of harm, state protection and viability of internal relocation are primarily within the province of the Board (and the Director). 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. No such error was demonstrated by the applicant. Clearly, his assertions do not constitute viable grounds of appeal and lack substance. We see no basis to interfere with the Leave Decision.

12.  For the above reasons, the applicant’s appeal against the Leave Decision has no merit and is dismissed.