Re Shafiq Ur Rahman

CACV 629/2020

[2021] HKCA 827

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 629 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 879 OF 2018)

____________________

____________________

____________________

J U D G M E N T

____________________

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

1)  The appeal

1.1This is an appeal by the applicant against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan of 20 November 2020 in which he refused to grant leave to him to apply for judicial review.

1.2This appeal was scheduled to be heard on 4 June 2021.  Despite the directions contained in the letter from the High Court to the applicant dated 1 April 2021, the applicant failed to lodge the skeleton argument by the stipulated time.  Accordingly the hearing was vacated and we will deal with this appeal on paper.

2)  Factual background

2.1The applicant is a national of Pakistan.  In 2008, the applicant came to Hong Kong illegally.  He made a non-refoulement claim and subsequently withdrew the claim.  He was then repatriated to Pakistan in 2013.  In April 2016, the applicant came again to Hong Kong illegally and remained here since.  On 19 July 2016, he applied for non‑refoulement protection.

2.2The basis of the applicant’s claim is that he would be harmed or killed by Akram Javed Kutri and Insaf Khan due to conflicts and money disputes over a piece of land if he was to return to Pakistan.

2.3The background facts have been summarized in the decision of the Judge at [2]-[4].

3)  The Director’s Decision

3.The Director of Immigration (‘the Director’) decided against the applicant’s non-refoulement claim on 4 January 2017.  The decision covered Bill of Rights Article 3 (torture/inhuman treatment) risk (‘BOR 3’), Bill of Rights Article 2 (right to life) risk (‘BOR 2’) as well as other statutory and convention rights against torture and persecution (‘the Director’s Decision’).

4)  The Board’s Decision

4.1The applicant appealed against the Director’s Decision to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (‘the Board’) on 18 January 2017.  After a hearing held on 16 January 2018, the Board dismissed the applicant’s appeal on 10 May 2018 (‘the Board’s Decision’).

4.2The Board found that the applicant was not a credible witness.  The applicant’s evidence during the hearing was significantly inconsistent with the written representations.  The Board questioned the truthfulness of the applicant’s story.

5)  Decision of the Judge

5.1The applicant filed his Form 86 but no grounds of review were mentioned.  In his supporting affirmation, he merely repeated his claim that he would be harmed or killed by his adversaries without any ground.

5.2The Judge held that the Board’s finding was based on the applicant’s credibility assessment through a detailed analysis as contained in the Board’s decision.  There was no reasonably arguable basis to challenge the Board’s decision.

6)  Grounds of appeal

6.The applicant in the notice of appeal merely stated that he believed that there was no good cause in the Judge’s decision, without explanation or elaboration.

7)  Our view

7.1We are of the view that the above are all bare allegations without particulars or specifics.  The applicant’s appeal is without merits.  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]. 

7.2It is thus incumbent on the applicant to point out with sufficient particularity the errors allegedly committed by the Deputy Judge in assessing the Board’s Decision.

7.3We see no basis to disturb the Deputy Judge’s decision.  Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Applicant, unrepresented, appearing in person