Azhar Abbas v. Torture Claims Appeal Board
|
CACV 674 /2026, [2026] HKCA 1619 On appeal from [2026] HKCFI 3417 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO 674 OF 2026 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1719 OF 2021) ________________________ 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 Michael Wong dated 10 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 killed because he is a Sunni Muslim and refused to convert to Shia Islam. Decisions of the Director and the Board 4.By the Notice of Decision dated 26 January 2021, the Director of Immigration rejected the applicant’s non-refoulement claim. His appeal was dismissed by the Board on 16 December 2021[2]. The judge’s decision 5.The applicant filed a Form 86 on 20 December 2021 to seek leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Board. His application was dismissed by the judge on 10 June 2026. Grounds of appeal 6.In his notice of appeal filed on 23 June 2026, the applicant stated the following grounds of appeal:
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. Analysis and disposition 8.The applicant’s ground pertaining to the reliance on web news not officially recognised is just bare assertion without particulars or evidence in support. He failed to provide any evidence to refute the Board’s findings. He also failed to demonstrate that the judge had made errors of law or failed to take account of relevant matters already placed before the court or was otherwise plainly wrong. 9.Therefore, 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/2021/HCAL001719_2021_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf |