RE ABDUL RAUF HARIS

CACV 824/2025, [2026] HKCA 1333

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 3166

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 824 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 424 OF 2020)

_______________

_______________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

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

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Levy (“the Judge”) dated 30 July 2025 ([2025] HKCFI 3166) (“the Leave Decision”) refusing to grant extension of time and dismissing 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 23 March 2018 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decisions of the Director of Immigration respectively dated 26 November 2015 and 21 November 2016, refusing his non‑refoulement claim. 

2.  The applicant is a national of Pakistan.  The basis of his non‑refoulement claim is, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by the Pakistani Muslim League (N) (“PML(N)”) supporters due to his support for the rival Pakistan People’s Party and his refusal to vote for the PML(N) in the local election in 2015.  His 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] ‑ [2] of the Leave Decision.  The Judge has set out his reasons for refusing the Leave Application at [4] ‑ [16] of the Leave Decision.  We will not repeat the details herein.

3.  By the Notice of Appeal filed on 2 October 2025 together with the attachments therein, the applicant reiterated the factual background of his non-refoulement claim and that he has not been able to contact his parents since 2023 and that he only has an elder brother who has been living in Germany since 2010.  He also claimed that he has an Indonesian girlfriend and together they have two baby boys, respectively born on 24 January 2024 and 4 June 2025.  He was thus worried that if they all return to Pakistan with the applicant, they would be killed by his enemies and the Islamic Party.

4.  Contrary to the directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals dated 2 October 2025, the applicant failed to lodge any written submissions in support of his appeal.

5.  On 2 October 2025, the applicant also indicated his consent in writing for this appeal to be disposed of on paper.  Accordingly, we proceed to consider this appeal on paper based on the available materials.

DISCUSSION

6.  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].

7.  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)].

8.  We see no merit in his contentions.  Nowhere in his Notice of Appeal did the applicant identify any error committed by the Judge with specific particulars.  General assertions of fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].  The bare allegations regarding his parents, his girlfriend and sons are not supported by evidence and are in any event subsequent to the Board’s Decision.  Accordingly, they have no relevance to his intended judicial review against the Board’s Decision. The Judge had thoroughly analysed the applicant’s case and given detailed reasons for finding the applicant’s intended judicial review not reasonably arguable.  We see no error in the Leave Decision.

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