Raza Ahmed v. Director of Immigration
|
CACV 1060/2025, [2026] HKCA 1543 On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 5414 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO 1060 OF 2025 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2448 OF 2020)
__________________________
________________ JUDGMENT ________________ The Court: 1.This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Philips Wong (“the Judge”) dated 12 November 2025 (“the Order”) refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 26 November 2020 (“the Director’s Decision”) which refused the Applicant to make a subsequent claim for non-refoulement protection. 2.The procedural history of his previous non-refoulement claim was briefly set out under paragraphs [2] and [3] in the Form CALL-1 dated 12 November 2025 (“the Form CALL-1”). 3.The Applicant is a national of Pakistan. He lodged an application to make a subsequent non-refoulement claim with the Immigration Department on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by the same group of enemies mentioned in his previous claim. The Applicant’s subsequent claim was rejected by the Director as it did not amount to any significant change of the Applicant’s circumstance. 4.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. 5.By a Notice of Appeal filed on 20 November 2025, the Applicant sought to appeal the Judge’s decision to this court on the grounds that (sic) :-
6.In the Applicant’s skeleton submission lodged on 10 July 2026, he made generic submissions on the general principles of law relating to non-refoulement claims, repeated his claim and contended that (1) the Applicant has established a real risk of serious harm if returned to his home country, (2) the Board erred in credibility/risk assessment and/or failed to give proper weight to his evidence, (3) internal relocation is not available to him, (4) the Board’s Decision was procedurally unfair or unlawful. 7.At the hearing on 14 August 2026, the Applicant reiterated that the information he provided to the Judge regarding the two murderers referred to in his claims was not hearsay evidence. He repeated certain points set out in his written submissions. He also referred to various paragraphs in the Form CALL-1 but was unable to identify any error made by the Judge. Lastly, he said that he is suffering from high pressure and is seeking medical assistance from a public hospital. That, however, is irrelevant to his appeal. 8.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)). 9.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 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: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022. 10.In the present case, the Judge found no error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board. It is incumbent on the Applicant to point out the Judge's errors with sufficient particulars and specifics. In our view, the matters set out in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal and written submissions 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. 11.For the above reasons, the Applicant’s appeal is devoid of merits. We dismiss it accordingly.
The Applicant appeared in person | ||||||||||||||||||||
Cases cited in this judgment