RE SHARMA SURESH

CACV 455/2024, [2025] HKCA 211

On Appeal From [2024] HKCFI 2672

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 455 OF 2024

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2039 OF 2019)

____________________

____________________

____________________

JUDGMENT

____________________

Hon H. Au-Yeung 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 (‘the Judge’) of 28 October 2024 by which he refused to grant the applicant leave to apply for judicial review.

2.  This appeal was originally scheduled to be heard on 25 February 2025.  However, despite the directions of the Court dated 31 December 2024 (“Directions”), the applicant has failed to lodge written submission by the stipulated time.  Accordingly, pursuant to paragraph 5 of the Directions, the hearing of the appeal was vacated and the Court will now deal with this appeal on paper. 

2)  Background

3.  The applicant is a national of Nepal.  On 20 January 2019, the applicant was arrested by police for being an illegal immigrant.  He then made a non-refoulement claim on 7 and 8 March 2019.

4.  The basis of the applicant’s non-refoulement claim is that he would be harmed or killed by his creditor. He also feared to be located by the police because he was involved in some criminal offences.

3)  The Director’s Decision

5.  Having considered the applicant’s claims in relation to Bill of Rights Article 2 (right to life) risk, Bill of Rights Article 3 (torture/inhuman treatment) risk, as well as risks under other statutory and convention against torture and persecution, the Director of Immigration (‘the Director’) dismissed the applicant’s claim on 10 May 2019 (‘the Director’s Decision’).

4)  The Board’s Decision

6.  The applicant appealed/petitioned against the Director’s Decision to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (‘the Board’), but the appeal/petition was dismissed by the Board on 5 July 2019 (‘the Board’s Decision’).

5)  Decision of the Judge

7.  The applicant then filed his Form 86 and affirmation in support, in which he complained that the Board’s Decision was unfair and unreasonable.

8.  The Judge held that for reasons given by the Board, the applicant’s claimed risks were unfounded, and the purported grounds of challenge were not valid.

6)  Grounds of appeal

9.  In the present appeal, the applicant relies on the following grounds in his Notice of Appeal:-

“I am not satisfied with the decision given by Torture Claims Appeal Board, since the decision are made without looking and concerning the relevant issues.”

10.  The applicant also had the following to say in his affirmation filed in support of this appeal:-

“I am the applicant here in. The decision made by the High Court Judge KW Lung has been reached unfairly without allowing mean opportunity to clearify my case and situation in my country. It’s not sufficient that was a litigant in person and unrepresented, there by making me unware of rules regarding 14-days time limit”

7)  Our view

11.  It is trite that 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].

12.  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.  

13.  In the present case, the grounds of appeal consist of bare allegations without particulars.  None of the arguments raised by the applicant shows that the Judge has made any error as referred to above.

14.  We are therefore of the view that the applicant’s appeal is without merits.    

15.  Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.