Re Waris Muhammad

CACV 130/2023, [2023] HKCA 887

On Appeal From [2023] HKCFI 1073

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 130 OF 2023

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 747 OF 2019)

____________________

____________________

____________________

J U D G M E N T

____________________

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 K W Lung of 26 April 2023 in which he refused to grant leave to him to apply for judicial review.

2.This appeal was scheduled to be heard on 18 July 2023.  Despite the directions contained in the letter from the High Court to the applicant dated 31 May 2023, the applicant failed to lodge the skeleton argument by the stipulated time.  Accordingly the Court informed the applicant by letter dated 26 June 2023 that the hearing would be vacated and the Court would deal with this appeal on paper.  After the case was vacated, the applicant filed his submission on 26 June 2023.  Despite the late filing of the submission, we will take it into consideration in our decision.

2)  Factual background

3.The applicant is a national of Pakistan.  The applicant alleged that he illegally entered Hong Kong on 5 June 2015.  He made a non‑refoulement claim on 28 December 2015.

4.The basis of the applicant’s claim is that he would be harmed or killed by people from the Pakistan Muslim League (N) because of political and land dispute.  He claimed to be a supporter of the rival Pakistan People’s Party (‘PPP’).

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

3)  The Director’s Decision

6.The Director of Immigration (‘the Director’) decided against the applicant’s non-refoulement claim on 14 March 2018.  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 persecution except torture (‘the Director’s Decision’).

4)  The Board’s Decision

7.The applicant appealed against the Director’s Decision to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (‘the Board’) on 28 March 2018.  After a hearing held on 28 November 2018, the Board dismissed the applicant’s appeal on 14 March 2019 (‘the Board’s Decision’).

8.The Board did not accept that the applicant ever had any actual or perceived involvement with the PPP.  It did not accept that the applicant was an actual or perceived campaigner.  The Board found that the applicant was never harmed or targeted.  The applicant was not pursued for harm in Pakistan.  The applicant had no involvement in Pakistan politics giving rise to a real chance of harm.  The applicant accepted before the Board that he never had a land problem in Pakistan.

5)  Decision of the Judge

9.The applicant filed his Form 86 and supporting affirmation.  No proper grounds of his intended application were provided.

10.The Judge held that the Board had assessed the applicant’s case and did not accept the applicant’s evidence on the facts of his case.  The Judge did not find any error of law or procedural irregularity in the Board’s Decision.

6)  Grounds of appeal

11.The applicant in the notice of appeal stated that his life was in great peril. 

12.In the applicant’s supporting affirmation no grounds of appeal were provided.

13.In the applicant’s written submissions, he gave broad and vague assertions without specifying how they related to the specifics of his case.  He annexed certain case authority without specifying how they relate to his case or how they show that there was error of law in the Judge’s decision.

7)  Our view

14.We are of the view that the applicant’s documents consist of 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].  None has been shown by the applicant.

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