Re Murtaza Ghulam

CACV 775/2026, [2026] HKCA 1879

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 3928

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 775 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1069 OF 2022)

_________________

________________

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

Hon Chu VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

Introduction

1.This is the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Levy dated 23 July 2026[1] refusing to extend time for the applicant to apply for judicial review and dismissing his application for leave to apply for judicial review. The intended judicial review is in respect of the decision dated 2 June 2022 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dismissing his appeal against the decision dated 30 September 2021 of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) which in turn had rejected the applicant’s non-refoulement claim having regard to the torture risk[2], BOR 3 risk[3], persecution risk[4] and BOR 2[5] risk grounds.

Background

2.The applicant is a national of Pakistan born in 1997.  He arrived in Hong Kong on 1 May 2019 and was permitted to remain as a visitor. He overstayed and surrendered to the Immigration Department on 9 November 2020. He later made a non-refoulement claim based on his fear of being harmed or killed by a man named Faisal and his brother Ali due to a land dispute. Details of the applicant’s background, the basis of his claim and the Board’s reasons for rejecting his appeal were set out in the Board’s decision[6].

3.The Director rejected the applicant’s claim. The applicant appealed to the Board. The Board decided not to hold an oral hearing for the appeal, being satisfied that it was reasonably clear that the applicant had provided everything he wished and it was appropriate to proceed without an oral hearing.  By its decision on 2 June 2022, the Board dismissed his appeal.

4.By a Form 86 filed on 11 October 2022, the applicant applied for leave to judicially review the Board’s decision.  The application was late by more than 1 month[7].  He did not put forward any ground for seeking relief in the Form 86 but stated in the accompanying affirmation that the Board did not give him an oral hearing.

5.The Judge heard the application on 4 June 2026. By a Form CALL-1 dated 23 July 2026, the Judge refused to extend time for the application and dismissed it. In gist, the Judge considered his explanation for the delay, namely he married a Hong Kong resident and had applied for a dependent visa, did not constitute good reason for the delay. The Judge also considered that the Board was entitled to deal with the appeal on the papers without conducting an oral hearing. The Judge further held that the applicant failed to show any errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s decision.

Appeal to this Court

6.On 27 July 2026, the applicant filed a Notice of Appeal against the Judge’s decision.  The grounds of appeal state that the applicant’s life is still in danger and he will face mishap if he were sent back to his home country. He asked for a review of the court’s decision.  

7.The appeal was listed for hearing on 23 September 2026.  Despite directions given by the Court, the applicant did not lodge any written submissions.  He was thus deemed to have waived his right to make submissions and the scheduled hearing was vacated pursuant to the directions of the Court.  We have therefore proceeded to determine the appeal on the basis of the available documents and materials.  

Discussion

8.In assessing the merits of the appeal, we have regard to the legal principles which this Court has adopted in dealing with appeals in non-refoulement cases: see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14]; Re Md Shohel Sheak [2018] HKCA 714 at [13]; and Re Limbu Birkhaman [2019] HKCA 50 at [11].  In particular, the role of the Court in a judicial review is not to provide a further avenue of appeal.  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.  In the determination of an appeal against the refusal of leave by the Court of First Instance, 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.  It is not the role of this Court to examine the decision of the Board afresh as if the appeal were a fresh application for judicial review.

9.In the present case, the Board accepted that the applicant had a dispute with Faisal and Ali in 2018 over his father’s land. However, the Board assessed on the evidence that Faisal and Ali had no continuing interest in the applicant and would not seek to find and harm him upon his return.  The Board also assessed that internal relocation to places such as Karachi, Lahore or Islamabad was viable. The Board concluded that the applicant failed to show any real risk of harm entitling him to non-refoulement protection under any of the applicable grounds. These findings of fact and assessment of risk are open to the Board to make based on the evidence it received, and for the reasons it gave.

10.As to the applicant’s complaint that the Board did not give him an oral hearing, the Judge noted that the Board took the view that the applicant had already provided everything he wished to advance for his appeal. We agree that this is a view open to the Board to take in the circumstances of the case. It is also clear from the Board’s decision that it reached its assessment on the risk of harm after full consideration and careful analysis of the applicant’s evidence and the country-of-origin information. Both before the Judge and in this appeal, the applicant has not pointed to any or any reasonably arguable public law error in relation to the Board’s decision.

11.Likewise, the applicant has not been identified any error in the Judge’s decision or advance any viable ground of appeal against the Judge’s refusal to extend the time for the application and his conclusion that the intended judicial review has no prospect of success.

12.For the above reasons, the applicant’s appeal has no merits. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

The applicant, unrepresented, acted in person.

[1] [2026] HKCFI 3928

[2] This refers to the risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap 115.

[3] This refers to risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under Article 3 of section 8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap 383.

[4] This refers to the risk of persecution with reference to the non‑refoulement principle under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol.

[5] This refers to the risk of being arbitrarily deprived of life under article 2 of section 8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap 383.

[6] https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2022/HCAL001069_2022_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf

[7] Order 53 rule 4(1) of the Rules of the High Court Cap.4A provides that an application for leave to apply for judicial review should be made promptly and in any case within three months from the date when grounds for the application first arose.