RE FAIZAN MUHAMMAD

CACV 965/2025, [2026] HKCA 498

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 4671

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 965 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1601 OF 2025)

_________________

________________

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

Hon Chu VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

Introduction

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K. W. Lung (“the Judge”) given on 23 October 2025[1] , which refused to extend the time for the applicant to apply for judicial review and dismissed his application for leave to apply for judicial review against the decision dated 5 August 2024 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”).  By its decision, the Board dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision dated 20 February 2024 of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) which rejected the applicant’s non-refoulement claim having regard to the torture risk[2] , BOR 3 risk[3] , persecution risk[4] and BOR 2[5] risk grounds.

Background

2.  The applicant is a national of Pakistan born in 1990. He entered Hong Kong illegally on 28 July 2023 and surrendered to the Immigration Department a few days later. He raised a non-refoulement claim on the basis that if he returned to Pakistan, he would be harmed or killed by his cousin Muhammad Naveed over a long-running family land dispute. Details of the applicant’s background, the basis of his claim and the arguments advanced before the Board as well as the Board’s reasons for rejecting his appeal have been set out in the Board’s decision[6] .

3.  The applicant filed his Form 86 on 7 July 2025, which was late by over 8 months[7] .  After considering the delay and the grounds advanced by the applicant in support of the application for leave to apply for judicial review, the Judge refused to extend time for the application and dismissed the application for the reasons given in [12] to [17] of the Form CALL-1. We will not repeat them.

This appeal

4.  By a Notice of Appeal filed on 3 November 2025, the applicant appeals the Judge’s decision to this Court.  The stated grounds of appeal are that the Judge did not find any error in the proceeding but the applicant can show there are many errors, and he should be given a chance to show the errors of the Board. 

5.  The appeal was listed for hearing on 9 March 2026. The applicant was directed to lodge his written skeleton argument by 9 February 2026 and further warned that failure to do so would result in the hearing date being vacated with the appeal determined on paper. This was communicated to the applicant by the Court’s letter dated 16 January 2026 and the Notice of Hearing dated 28 January 2026.  The applicant did not lodge his skeleton argument by the stipulated time.  The hearing date was accordingly vacated, and we have proceeded to process this appeal on paper based on the available materials. 

Our reasons for decision

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 considered that the applicant had put forward a bare claim, pointing out that despite directions given prior to the hearing and further time given after the hearing, the applicant failed to adduce supporting documentary evidence, such as the relevant land title records and his uncle’s death certificate.  The Board considered that these were documents of public record, which were not difficult to obtain, and the applicant’s explanation for the failure to do so was unconvincing. On the applicant’s testimony and the materials before it, the Board found that at most there was a longstanding family dispute over the inheritance of a piece of land from the applicant’s late grandfather, in which the applicant has no legal interest, and he has never experienced any harm from his cousin. Further, having regard to the relevant inheritance law and the relevant country of origin information (COI), the applicant’s account of how his family was supposed to inherit the land and how the land was to be distributed amongst the entitled family members could not stand up to scrutiny. The Board further assessed that internal relocation was reasonably viable, which would negate or reduce any risk that the applicant would face.  The Board concluded that the applicant failed to substantiate his claim of harm under any of the applicable grounds. These are findings of fact open to the Board based on the evidence before it, 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. We are satisfied that the Judge gave proper and adequate reasons for his conclusion that the intended judicial review has no reasonable prospect of success.

9.  The applicant’s appeal is accordingly dismissed.

[1] [2025] HKCFI 4671

[2] This refers to the risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap 115.

[3] This refers to risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under Article 3 of section 8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap 383.

[4] This refers to the risk of persecution with reference to the non‑refoulement principle under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol.

[5] This refers to the risk of being arbitrarily deprived of life under article 2 of section 8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap 383.

[6] https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/ judg/html/vetted/other/en/ 2025/HCAL001601_2025_files/ the_Board's_Decision.pdf

[7]  Order 53 rule 4(1) of the Rules of the High Court Cap.4A provides that an application for leave to apply for judicial review should be made promptly and in any event within three months from the date when grounds for the application first arose.