Sheikh Amr v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
|
CACV 671 /2026, [2026] HKCA 1618 On appeal from [2026] HKCFI 3364 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO 671 OF 2026 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 864 OF 2022) ________________________ BETWEEN
________________________
_____________________ J U D G M E N T _____________________ Hon Kwan VP (giving the Judgment of the Court): Background 1.This is an appeal by the applicant against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge To dated 11 June 2026[1] refusing to grant leave for the applicant to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) concerning his non‑refoulement claim. 2.This appeal was scheduled to be heard on 11 August 2026. Despite the directions from the High Court to the applicant dated 24 June 2026, the applicant failed to lodge written submissions by the stipulated time. As the said directions were not complied with, the hearing date has been vacated pursuant thereto. The court will deal with this appeal on paper. 3.The applicant is a national of Pakistan. He raised a non-refoulement claim on 3 October 2019 on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by supporters or members of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf as he did not support their candidate in a local election. Decisions of the Director and the Board 4.By the Notice of Decision dated 21 May 2020, the Director of Immigration rejected the applicant’s non-refoulement claim. His appeal was dismissed by the Board on 13 July 2022[2]. The judge’s decision 5.The applicant filed a Form 86 on 31 August 2022 to seek leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Board. His application was dismissed by the judge on 11 June 2026. Grounds of appeal 6.In his notice of appeal filed on 22 June 2026, the applicant stated that he should be happy to provide the notice of appeal with any further information and he will submit his written submission if the court allows. He did not put forward any specific ground of appeal. As mentioned above, he did not lodge any written submissions despite the court’s directions. Legal principles 7.The Court of Appeal’s general approach in dealing with appeals in non-refoulement cases is set out in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at §14. 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, the appeal should be dismissed. It is not the role of this court to examine the decision of the Board afresh as if it is a fresh application for judicial review. Analysis and disposition 8.The applicant confirmed at the hearing of the Court of First Instance that he had no complaints about any errors of law, procedural unfairness and irrationality in the Board’s decision. In the present appeal, the applicant did not provide any ground against the judge’s decision in this appeal. We found that the appeal is devoid of merits and dismiss it accordingly.
The Applicant (Appellant), acting in person [2] The Board’s Decision can be viewed in the following hyperlink: https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2022/HCAL000864_2022_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf |