Re Akash Mohammad Ferdush Rahman
|
CACV 719/2026, [2026] HKCA 1578 On appeal from [2026] HKCFI 3517 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO 719 OF 2026 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 1408/2022) -----------------------------------
-----------------------------------
___________________ J U D G M E N T ___________________ Hon Barma JA (giving the Judgment of the Court): 1.This is an appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Issac Chan (“the Judge”) given on 22 June 2026[1] (“the Leave Decision”) refusing to grant leave for the applicant to apply for judicial review. The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/adjudicator of the Non‑Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 23 November 2022 (“the Board’s Decision”) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 12 June 2020 rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim. 2.The applicant’s background, the basis of his claim and the Board’s reasons in reaching the Board’s Decision have been set out therein and summarised by the Judge at [8]-[10] of the Leave Decision, which will not be repeated. 3.After considering the documents filed by the applicant as well as the oral submissions he made at the hearing of the leave application, the Judge dismissed the application for the reasons stated at [5]-[11] of the Leave Decision. Appeal to this court 4.In a Notice of Appeal dated 2 July 2026, the applicant contended that the court did not scrutinise his claim properly and that the problem in his home country remains “very severe”. He emphasised that he would be killed by his enemies should he be refouled. 5.In his written submissions dated 10 July 2026, the applicant contended inter alia (without elaboration or particulars) that (i) the Judge was wrong as a matter of law “for not having applied the principle of irrationality” to the Board’s Decision; (ii) the Judge reviewed “the matter lightly” and high standards of fairness were not adhered to in the consideration of his claim. He repeated that he would be tortured by his enemies should he return to his home country. 6.We heard the appeal on 18 August 2026, at which the applicant appeared in person. At the hearing, the applicant submitted that he wished to “collect some documents” from Bangladesh and that he needed more time to do so. As the documents, as the applicant confirmed, have not been considered by the Judge in the hearing below, we will not consider the same on appeal, and will determine the appeal on the basis of the materials already filed. Discussion 7.As this court has often stated, an appeal to the Court of Appeal is not a fresh application for judicial review. It is necessary to identify some error on the part of the judge that would justify this court in intervening: see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14]. The court will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there are errors of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board. An appeal is not the occasion for regurgitating arguments advanced and rejected by the judge or for running arguments which could and should have been raised but were not raised before the judge. In the determination of an appeal, the Court of Appeal focuses on the decision of the judge and the court will only reverse that decision if an appellant could demonstrate that the judge made errors of law or failed to take account of relevant matters already placed before the court or was otherwise plainly wrong. 8.The applicant has failed to identify any error on the part of the Judge and thus failed to raise any viable ground of appeal. The points advanced by the applicant were bare assertions unsupported by particulars or evidence. 9.In the present case, the Board found the applicant to be an incredible witness and concluded that he had never been mistreated by his alleged enemy Mainul nor members of the Awami League, and thus his claim of alleged fear of being harmed by them was not made out on the evidence. These were findings open to the Board, and were sufficiently canvassed and considered by the Judge in the Leave Decision at [5]-[11]. We see no basis to interfere. 10.The applicant has accordingly failed to demonstrate how the Board had acted unlawfully or procedurally unfairly in reaching its Decision, or how such Decision could be said to be Wednesbury unreasonable. 11.As we have noted, the applicant advanced no viable grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision. There is therefore no merit in the appeal and we dismiss the appeal accordingly.
The applicant, unrepresented, appearing in person |