RE ZAIB FARAN AURANG

CACV 465/2024, [2025] HKCA 195

On Appeal From [2024] HKCFI 2813

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 465 OF 2024

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2143 OF 2019)

____________________

____________________

____________________

JUDGMENT

____________________

Hon Cheung JA (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 of 4 November 2024 in which he refused to grant extension of time for leave for judicial review to the applicant.

2.  This appeal was scheduled to be heard on 25 February 2025.  Despite the directions from the Court to the applicant dated 31 December 2024 (‘Directions’), the applicant failed to lodge written submission by the stipulated time.  Accordingly by [4] 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 Pakistan.  On 9 March 2016, the applicant was arrested by police for being an illegal immigrant.  He raised a torture claim on 12 March 2016[1].

4.  The basis of the applicant’s claim is that he would be harmed or killed by his paternal uncle due to a land dispute[2].

5.  The background facts have been summarized in the decision of the Judge at [5] to [8].

3)  The Director’s Decision

6.  The Director of Immigration (‘the Director’) decided against the applicant’s non-refoulement claim on 28 November 2016.  The decision covered Bill of Rights Article 2 (right to life) risk, Bill of Rights Article 3 (torture/inhuman treatment) risk as well as other statutory and convention rights against torture and persecution^[3] (‘the Director’s Decision’).

4)  The Board’s Decision

7.  The applicant appealed/petitioned against the Director’s Decision to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (‘the Board’)[4]. After a hearing held on 19 March 2018, the Board dismissed the applicant’s appeal on 10 September 2018 (‘the Board’s Decision’).

8.  The Board’s finding is summarized in the decision of the Judge at [11] to [13].

5)  Decision of the Judge

9.  The applicant filed his Form 86 and affirmation but no specific grounds were provided for the intended challenge, see the decision of the Judge at [14]‑[15].

10.  The Judge held that for reasons given by the Board, the applicant will not be subjected to any of the applicable risks when he returns.  Without any specific grounds raised, there was no reason to interfere with the Board’s Decision.  See the decision of the Judge at [19].

6)  Grounds of appeal

11.  The applicant in the notice of appeal stated the following :

‘ The High Court did not consider my JR. Adjudicator did not give me correct decision. His decision is full of wrong. Please grant my leave.’

7)  Our view

12.  We are of the view that the applicant’s appeal is without merits.  The grounds of appeal consist of bare allegation without particulars or specifics.  The applicant provided no reasonably arguable grounds for judicial review.  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].

13.  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.  None of the arguments raised by the applicant shows the Judge has made any error of law.  

14.  We see no basis to disturb the Judge’s decision.  Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.