LATIF FARRUKH v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

CACV 452/2026, [2026] HKCA 1264

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 1355

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 452 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1456 OF 2020)

__________________________

__________________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

Hon D’Almada Remedios J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

Introduction

1.  This is an appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) YW Hew (“Judge”) on 21 April 2026 dismissing the applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/adjudicator of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dated 12 June 2020. In that decision, the Board upheld the decisions of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 28 November 2014 and 9 August 2017 rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

Background

2.  The applicant is a national of Pakistan born in 1981 and his claim was made on the basis that if he returned to Pakistan, a group of Shia Muslims (Ayeed Abdullah, his two sons and their cousin) would harm or kill him due to a religious-related dispute (as the applicant is a Sunni Muslim).  Details of 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 [1] of the Form CALL-1. The Judge has set out the grounds advanced by the applicant in support of the application and his reasons for refusal of the application: see [8] – [17] of the Form CALL-1.  

Appeal to this Court

3.  On 4 May 2026, the applicant filed his Notice of Appeal against the Judge’s decision. His stated grounds of appeal were, essentially, that the Judge erred in the following ways: by determining the substantive merits rather than assessing for reasonably arguable grounds with a realistic prospect of success; by treating the Board’s findings as immune from challenge; by not considering that the Board failed to conduct adequate inquiry; by relying on deficiencies in the Form 86 and failing to consider the applicant’s grounds; by failing to consider whether the Board gave inadequate reasons on the findings of state acquiescence, sufficiency of protection, internal relocation and country of origin information; by not assessing whether the rejection of the applicant’s account was inadequately reasoned; by assessing the complaints in isolation rather than cumulatively; and by dismissing the additional documentary evidence without consideration of whether fairness required proper evaluation of that material.

4.  The applicant has lodged written submissions in which he recited the legal principles of fairness and Wednesbury unreasonableness without any application to his own case. He also stated that the Board failed to properly assess his credibility without any elaboration.

5.  At the hearing, the applicant had nothing further to add.

Discussion

6.  In assessing the merits of the appeal, we shall have regard to the legal principles which this Court has adopted in dealing with appeals in non-refoulement cases: see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14]; Re Md Shohel Sheak [2018] HKCA 714 at [13]; and Re Limbu Birkhaman [2019] HKCA 50 at [11]. In particular, the role of the Court in a judicial review is not to provide a further avenue of appeal. 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. In the determination of an appeal against the refusal of leave by the Court of First Instance, 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. It is not the role of this Court to examine the decision of the Board afresh as if the appeal were a fresh application for judicial review.

7.  In the present case, the Board found that there was no real risk of harm upon refoulement as alleged, because it did not find the applicant to be a witness of truth and it was not satisfied that the applicant had told the truth in relation to critical elements of his claims. These are findings of fact open to the Board based on the evidence it received and for the reasons it gave. The applicant has failed to show any reasonably arguable public law error in relation to the Board’s decision.

8.  Equally, the applicant has not been able to demonstrate any error in the decision of the Judge or advance any viable ground of appeal against the Judge’s decision. Contrary to the applicant’s complaints, the Judge had assessed the applicant’s grounds extensively at [10] to [15] and also considered the applicant’s additional documents submitted as set out in [16] of his decision. We are not satisfied that there is any error in the Judge’s decision.

9.  The applicant’s appeal is accordingly dismissed.