Re Naveed Ur Rehman

CACV 696/2025, [2026] HKCA 1332

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 3833

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 696 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 758 OF 2020)

_______________

_______________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

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

1.This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Michael Wong (“the Judge”) dated 26 August 2025 ([2025] HKCFI 3833) (“the Leave Decision”) dismissing his application for leave to apply for judicial review out of time (“the Leave Application”) against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 20 November 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 30 May 2018, refusing his non‑refoulement claim. 

2.The applicant is a national of Pakistan.  The basis of his non-refoulement claim is, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by his paternal uncle and a supporter of the Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz), due to a land dispute.  His background, the basis of his claim and arguments advanced before the Board as well as the Board’s reasons for rejecting his appeal are all set out in the Board’s Decision: see [1] and [10] ‑ [11] of the Leave Decision.  The Judge has set out his reasons for refusing the Leave Application at [5] ‑ [9] and [12] ‑ [27] of the Leave Decision.  We will not repeat the details herein.

3.By the Notice of Appeal filed on 5 September 2025, the applicant claimed:

“the decision made was unsatisfied and was totally unfair, there are some law error in my decision, the decision is non read and mis read many thing skip in my case, the judge only favor appeal board and immigration director, I reques to the appeal authorities carefully read my case and grant my appeal.” (sic)

4.Contrary to the directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals dated 5 September 2025, the applicant failed to lodge any written submission in support of his appeal.

5.On 5 September 2025, the applicant also indicated his consent in writing for this appeal to be disposed of on paper.  Accordingly, we proceed to consider this appeal on paper based on the available materials.

DISCUSSION

6.The relevant legal principles governing appeals in non‑refoulement cases are set out in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14].

7.In particular, in an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in non-refoulement cases, the Court of Appeal will 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’s role is not to examine the decision maker’s decision afresh as if it were a fresh application for judicial review.  See Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14(6)].

8.We see no merit in his contentions.  It is incumbent on the applicant to point out any purported errors in the Leave Decision with sufficient particulars and specifics.  Yet, nowhere in his Notice of Appeal did the applicant identify any specific error committed by the Judge with particulars.  All his allegations are general, bare and vague without any supporting particulars or evidence.  Plainly, his assertions are not valid grounds of appeal and have no merit.

9.For the above reasons, the applicant’s appeal is hereby dismissed.

The applicant acting in person