Waqas v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
|
CACV 980/2025, [2026] HKCA 761 On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 5006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO. 980 OF 2025 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2430 OF 2020) ________________________ BETWEEN
________________________
________________________ J U D G M E N T ________________________ Hon Ng J (giving the Judgment of the Court): INTRODUCTION 1.This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Philips Wong (“the Judge”) dated 24 October 2025 (“the Order”) refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 19 November 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”) whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 12 March 2020 (“the Director’s Decision”). BACKGROUND 2.The applicant is a national of Pakistan. He lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Immigration Department on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by a local criminal gang leader named Raja Babar and his men who was trying to stop him from pursuing court proceedings against them. The applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director, and his appeal against it was rejected by the Board. Details of the applicant’s claim and the Board’s reasons for rejecting the applicant’s appeal can be found in the Board’s Decision. 3.The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge and details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can be found in the Form CALL-1. GROUNDS OF APPEAL 4.By a notice of appeal filed on 7 November 2025, the applicant sought to appeal the Judge’s decision to this court. For the grounds of appeal, the applicant stated that :
5.In his supporting affirmation of the same date, he stated that:
6.In the applicant’s skeleton arguments lodged on 16 March 2026, he reiterated his claim, and disputed the decisions of the Director and the Board. 7.However, the applicant did not indicate any complaint against or identify any error made by the Judge in dismissing his application for leave to take out a judicial review. 8.The appeal was heard on 16 April 2026. The applicant attended the hearing in person with the assistance of an Urdu interpreter and confirmed that he had nothing further to add. LEGAL PRINCIPLES 9.In an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in non-refoulement cases, the Court of Appeal would 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 of Appeal’s role is not to examine the Board’s decision afresh as if it was a fresh application for judicial review (see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, at §14(6)). 10.The assessment of evidence, country of origin information, risk of harm, state protection and viability of internal relocation are primarily within the province of the Board and the Director. The court below will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there are errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022. DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION 11.In the present case, no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board was detected by the Judge or was pointed out by the applicant apart from the bare assertions as stated in his grounds of appeal and his skeleton arguments, which were not substantiated with any specific information or elaboration as to how they apply to his present appeal. 12.It is incumbent on the applicant to point out the Judge’s errors with sufficient particulars. In our view, the matters set out in the applicant’s notice of appeal and skeleton arguments failed to identify any error on the part of the Judge. They do not constitute any viable grounds of appeal and lack substance. We see no basis to interfere with the Judge’s decision. 13.The applicant’s appeal is devoid of merits. We dismiss it accordingly.
The applicant, unrepresented, acted in person |
Cases cited in this judgment