Re Farooq Muhammad
Read the full judgment text of CACV 118/2025 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 28 August 2025.
1. This is an appeal by the applicant against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung of 11 March 2025 in which he refused to grant leave to him to apply for judicial review (the “ Judge’s Decision ”).
Cites 2 cases
|
CACV 118/2025, [2025] HKCA 758 On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 719 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO. 118 OF 2025 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2483 OF 2019) ________________________
________________________
________________________ J U D G M E N T ________________________ Hon K Yeung J (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 11 March 2025 in which he refused to grant leave to him to apply for judicial review (the “Judge’s Decision”). 2.This appeal was scheduled to be heard on 30 July 2025. Despite the directions from the Court to the applicant dated 9 June 2025 (“Directions”), the applicant failed to lodge written submission by the stipulated time. Accordingly by [5] of the Directions, the hearing of the appeal was vacated and the Court will now deal with this appeal on paper. 3.On 14 July 2025, the Appeal’s Registry received from the applicant a “Request for Dismissal of Appeal”. 2) Background 4.The applicant is a national of Pakistan. He entered Hong Kong illegally in December 2015. He applied for non-refoulement protection in May 2016[1]. 5.The basis of the applicant’s claim is that he would be harmed or killed by his paternal uncle Ghulam and his son Afzaal because of a property dispute[2]. 6.The background facts have been summarized in the Judge’s Decision at [4] to [5]. 3) The Director’s Decision 7.The Director of Immigration (the “Director”) decided against the applicant’s non-refoulement claim on 17 August 2018. 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 8.The applicant appealed/petitioned against the Director’s Decision to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “Board”). After a hearing held on 26 November 2018, the Board dismissed the applicant’s appeal/petition on 23 August 2019 (the “Board’s Decision”). 9.The Board’s finding is summarized in the Judge’s Decision at [8]-[9]. 5) The Judge’s Decision 10.The applicant filed his Form 86 and affirmation on 27 August 2019. He raised various grounds in support of his application for judicial review. The Judge addressed them at [11] and [15] of Judge’s Decision. 11.The Judge held that the applicant failed to show any realistic prospect of success in his proposed judicial review - see the Judge’s Decision at [17]. 6) Grounds of appeal 12.The applicant in the notice of appeal stated the following (all mistakes being original) :
7) Our view 13.We are of the view that the applicant’s appeal is without merits. The grounds of appeal consist of bare allegations with no 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 Kongv Yusuf Yu [2018] HKCA 451 at [38] and [39]. 14.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. 15.We see no basis to disturb the Judge’s Decision. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 16.We would also (according to the applicant’s request for dismissal of appeal) dismiss the applicant’s appeal.
Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person |