|
CACV 557/2025, [2026] HKCA 155
On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 2953
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 557 OF 2025
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 89 OF 2020)
________________________
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
NASIR ASAD |
Applicant |
| |
and |
|
| |
TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD |
Putative |
| |
|
Respondent |
| |
and |
|
| |
DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION |
Putative |
| |
|
Interested Party |
_____________________
| Before: |
Hon Au and Chow JJA in Court |
| Date of Written Submissions: |
11 August 2025 |
| Date of Judgment: |
23 February 2026 |
_______________
J U D G M E N T
_______________
Hon Chow JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Michael Wong (“the Judge”) dated 15 July 2025 (“the Order”) refusing to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 6 January 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 29 July 2019.
2. The Applicant alleges that, if refouled to Pakistan, he will be harmed or killed by members of the Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) because he has joined its political rival, namely, the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Inasf. The Applicant’s background, the basis of his claim, the findings of the Board and its reasons for dismissing his appeal against the Director’s decision have been set out in detail in the Board’s Decision, and referred to by the Judge in the Judge’s decision (see §§1, 2, 5 and 6 of the CALL-1 Form). We do not propose to repeat them here.
3. The Judge’s reasons for dismissing the Applicant’s leave application are set out at §§13-34 of the CALL-1 Form. In gist, the Judge considered that the grounds advanced by the Applicant for his intended judicial review were either irrelevant to his leave application, or did not give rise to any valid ground for challenging the Board’s Decision. The Judge did not find any errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision.
THIS APPEAL
4. In his Notice of Appeal filed on 29 July 2025, the Applicant states the following:
“The decision made was unsatisfied and was totally unfair. The Adjudicator is wrong to state that I do not face any risk to return to my country. The decision is wrong many think ignore my case.” [sic]
5. On 29 July 2025, the Applicant consented to his appeal being disposed of on paper by the Court without an oral hearing.
6. In his written submissions lodged on 11 August 2025, the Applicant argues that the Judge’s decision is wrong and unfair on the following grounds: (i) he believes that state protection will not be available to him and internal relocation will not be a viable option upon his refoulement[1], (ii) the Judge took into account irrelevant materials and failed to take into account the facts and circumstances of his case or relevant country of origin information (“COI”) to fairly assess the danger that he would face in his home country[2], and (iii) the Judge failed to give cogent reasons in his decision[3].
DISCUSSION
7. In an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in non-refoulement cases, the Court of Appeal would 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 of Appeal’s role is not to examine the Board’s decision afresh as if it was a fresh application for judicial review (see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, at §14(6)).
8. Further, the assessment of evidence, COI, 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: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022, at §13.
9. The Applicant’s complaints raised in the Notice of Appeal and his written submissions are general assertions without particulars, and do not constitute valid grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision. The complaint that the Judge failed to give cogent reasons for his decision is plainly without substance as the Judge had carefully considered the Applicant’s intended grounds of judicial review and also his assertions raised at the oral hearing before him, and the Judge dealt with them in the CALL-1 Form. The remaining complaints in the Applicant’s written submissions fall within the province of the Board. No error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board is shown in the present case.
10. The Applicant has failed to raise any viable ground of appeal against the Order.
11. The Applicant’s appeal has no merit, and is dismissed.
(Thomas Au)
Justice of Appeal
|
(Anderson Chow)
Justice of Appeal
|
The Applicant, acting in person
[1] See points (i), (iii) and (vi) of the Applicant’s Written Submissions.
[2] See points (ii) and (iv)-(vi) of the Applicant’s Written Submissions.
[3] See points (ii) and (v) of the Applicant’s Written Submissions.
|