Case Detail

SHAFAIT MUHAMMAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Related cases with same parties

CACV100/2026SINGH NARINDER PAL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV10/2022ROBILLOS ADOLFO DE LA CRUZ v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV103/2021LUU THI VAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD /NON REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV103/2023ALMAS KHAWAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV103/2025COLLINS OBI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV104/2019DHALI JONY v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV104/2023VU THI NGOC MY v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV105/2021DINH THI VAN 對 TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITON OFFICE
CACV107/2023NGUYEN THI THUY v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV107/2025AHMAD AQEEL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV1081/2025HOANG VAN BINH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV110/2021AYUB MUHAMMAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV11/2023RUPASINGHA ARACHCHIGE SHIROMA THARANGANI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV112/2025NONG THI HA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV113/2022SITI MULDIYATI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV1151/2025ARSHDEEP SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV115/2022GALLEGO VALDES AUGUSTO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV115/2024QUIRANTE JACKIELON DE GUZMAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV115/2025DINH KHAC KIEN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV1153/2025MEGA PUSPITA SARI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Files (2)

[2022] HKCA 1102-EN-2022-07-29

SHAFAIT MUHAMMAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HTML content

CACV 429/2021

[2022] HKCA 1102

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 429 OF 2021

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2811 OF 2018)

________________________

BETWEEN
	Shafait Muhammad	Applicant
	and
	Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non‑refoulement Claims Petition Office	Putative Respondent
	and
	Director of Immigration	Putative Interested Party

________________________

Before: Hon Kwan VP and Lisa Wong J in Court

Date of Written Submission: 21 April 2022

Date of Judgment: 29 July 2022

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1. This is the applicant’s Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal (Kwan VP and Lisa Wong J) handed down on 21 January 2022 ([2022] HKCA 134). The Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung dated 26 August 2021 ([2021] HKCFI 2456) refusing to grant leave for the applicant to seek judicial review concerning his non-refoulement claim.

2. Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, the Registrar of Civil Appeals had directed on 28 February 2022 that the Notice of Motion shall be determined on paper without an oral hearing. The applicant lodged his written submissions on 21 April 2022. Having considered his written submissions and the papers, we think it is appropriate to determine this application on paper and proceed to do so.

3. The applicant is a national of Pakistan. He entered Hong Kong illegally and was arrested by the police on 15 September 2012. He lodged his torture claim on 17 September 2012. This was refused by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 8 February 2013 and his appeal was dismissed by the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) on 2 April 2013. His claim was made on the basis that he will be harmed or killed by some members of the Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) because of a land dispute.

4. After the commencement of the Unified Screening Mechanism in 2014, the applicant’s claim was further assessed on BOR 2 risk [1], BOR 3 risk[2] and persecution risk[3], which was rejected by the Director and the Board on 7 March 2018 and 3 December 2018 respectively.

5. He filed a Form 86 on 10 December 2018 to seek leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Board. The leave application was dismissed by DCHJ K W Lung on 26 August 2021.

6. The applicant filed a Notice of Appeal on 6 September 2021. The appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 21 January 2022. He filed the present Notice of Motion on 28 February 2022 for leave to appeal out of time to the Court of Final Appeal.

Grounds of appeal

7. The applicant stated the following grounds in his Notice of Motion and affirmation:

(1)  There is some error in law in the decision. The decision maker just relied on the Country of Origin information (“COI”) and previous facts to reject the claim while the real-life situation is different from what is mentioned in the COI. The decision failed to take into account the dangers and risk of his life.
(2)  The immigration officer and the court ignored the evidence of violence towards minorities, searching for unrealistic silver lining.
(3)  The decision betrayed a biased and formulaic approach which is unlikely to fairly assess the danger to his life and is clearly unreasonable.

8. His written submissions are substantially the same as the ones he previously lodged in his appeal to the Court of Appeal.

Analysis and disposition

9. Under section 24(2) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484, “the Ordinance”), application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal shall be filed within 28 days from the date of the judgment to be appealed from. Section 24(5) further provides that the Court of Appeal may, if it considers appropriate, extend the time for making application for leave to appeal.

10. Good grounds have to be shown by the applicant for the court to grant an extension of time. The relevant factors in considering whether extension of time should be given are the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, the merits of the proposed appeal, and the prejudice to the other party (Re Rajaram Razeena[2019] HKCA 959 at §1.4).

11. Section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, from any judgment of the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter, whether final or interlocutory, if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, as the case may be, the question involved in the appeal is one which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision.

12. The applicant was late for 3 days in filing his Notice of Motion. Apart from the absence of any explanation for the delay in his affirmation, there are no merits in the intended appeal. The applicant failed to give any particulars or evidence in support of his grounds and submissions and/or demonstrate that the Court of Appeal was wrong in rejecting his appeal. We are not satisfied there is any good ground to grant an extension of time for the applicant to file the Notice of Motion.

13. In any event, he has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance which ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for determination in accordance with section 22(1)(b). There is also no basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).

14. For the above reasons, we dismiss the Notice of Motion filed on 28 February 2022.

(Susan Kwan)
Vice President

(Lisa Wong)
Judge of the Court of
First Instance

The Applicant (Appellant), acting in person

[1] 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).

[2] 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).

[3] 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.

CACV 429/2021

[2022] HKCA 134

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 429 OF 2021

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2811 OF 2018)

________________________

BETWEEN
	Shafait Muhammad	Applicant
	and
	Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office	Putative Respondent
	and
	Director of Immigration	Putative Interested Party

________________________

Before: Hon Kwan VP and Lisa Wong J in Court

Date of Hearing: 17 January 2022

Date of Judgment: 21 January 2022

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1. On 26 August 2021, Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung refused to grant leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) concerning the applicant’s non-refoulement protection claim[1]. The applicant filed a Notice of Appeal against the judge’s decision on 6 September 2021.

2. The applicant is a national of Pakistan. He is 45 years old. He entered Hong Kong illegally and was arrested by the police on 15 September 2012. He lodged his torture claim on 17 September 2012 which was refused by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 8 February 2013 and his appeal was dismissed by the Board on 2 April 2013. His claim was made on the basis that he will be harmed or killed by some members of the Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) (“PML(N)”) because of a land dispute.

The Director’s decision

3. After the commencement of the Unified Screening Mechanism in 2014, the applicant’s claim was further assessed on BOR 2 risk[2], BOR 3 risk[3] and persecution risk[4]. The applicant lodged a supplementary claim form and attended a screening interview on 28 February 2018. By a Notice of Decision dated 7 March 2018, the Director rejected the applicant’s non-refoulement claim on the said applicable grounds.

4. Taking into account the low intensity and frequency of the past ill-treatment from the PML(N) members, the Director assessed that the level of future risk of harm upon the applicant’s return is low. The Director further considered that the alleged ill-treatment had not attained the requisite minimum level of severity. The Director also considered that those PML(N) members have no reason or motive to pursue the applicant or kill him after having successfully occupied the land for years without any of the applicant’s family members showing intention to retrieve it. Moreover, the Director held that the availability of state protection and internal relocation alternatives further lowers or negates the perceived risk.

The Board’s decision

5. The applicant’s appeal against the Director’s decision was heard before the Board on 22 August 2018. Although the Board was prepared to accept on balance that the applicant had a dispute regarding the seizure of his family’s land through violent and fraudulent means, the Board had concerns with the extent to which the applicant has been threatened and whether the fear of harm is as serious as claimed. The Board considered that the applicant had exaggerated his claims in relation to the alleged danger. The Board further held that state protection is available and alternative internal relocation is a reasonable option for the applicant to avoid the harm he fears. Thus, the Board rejected the appeal on 3 December 2018.

The intended judicial review

6. The applicant filed a Form 86 and an affirmation on 10 December 2018 to seek leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Board. He did not put forward specific grounds for his intended judicial review. He only stated in his supporting affirmation that he cannot go back to his country because his life is not safe there.

The judge’s decision

7. DHCJ K W Lung considered the leave application on paper as the applicant did not request for an oral hearing. The judge held there is no error of law or procedural unfairness in the Board’s decision and the findings of the Board are not Wednesbury unreasonable or irrational in any respect. The judge therefore dismissed the leave application on 26 August 2021.

Grounds of appeal

8. The applicant stated the following grounds of appeal in the Notice of Appeal filed on 6 September 2021:

(1)  The decisions are unlawful.
(2)  The decisions failed to take into account many things and issues.
(3)  The applicant’s life is in danger in his home country so he cannot go back.

9. His further contentions in his written submissions may be summarised as follows:

(1)  The immigration officer did not know the real situation and condition of Pakistani culture.
(2)  The Director failed to appreciate or give proper importance or weight to the presence of state acquiescence.
(3)  The applicant was tortured at the behest of and in collusion of the police and the law enforcement agencies as well as those in the political circles.
(4)  The Director failed to take into account the state’s failure in providing reasonable protection to its citizens. The Director failed to consider or give sufficient weight to the relevant country of origin information which supports the applicant’s case that the Pakistani police would not be able to protect him.
(5)  Corruption and incompetency of the administration in Pakistan is still a very serious problem. Various human rights organizations have compiled reports on the matter which gave testament to the applicant’s assertions.
(6)  The Director failed to attain the high standard of fairness and the decision is unreasonable.
(7)  The adjudicator failed to make sufficient enquiries before finalising the determination and failed to give sufficient chance to the applicant to arrange relevant evidence.
(8)  A sufficiently established threat of BOR 3 risk constitutes a ground restraining the Hong Kong government from proceeding with the deportation.

He made no oral submissions at the hearing of the appeal.

Legal Principles

10. The general principles regarding an appeal in a non-refoulement case have been set out comprehensively by the Court of Appeal in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration[2018] HKCA 524 at §14.

11. An appeal against the refusal of leave by a judge in the Court of First Instance is not the occasion for regurgitating arguments advanced and rejected by the judge. In determining an appeal, the Court of Appeal focuses on the decision of the judge and would only reverse that decision if it can be demonstrated 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.

Analysis and disposition

12. The applicant’s complaints against the Director and the Board were not raised before the judge in his previous leave application. The Court of Appeal will not entertain fact-and-evidence sensitive new arguments which have not been canvassed at the Court of First Instance and for which leave has not been sought within time. In any event, the applicant failed to adduce any evidence in support of his complaints. 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 present case, the applicant failed to demonstrate there is any error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s decision despite the bare assertions in his written submissions.

13. The rest of the applicant’s grounds are just bare assertions without particulars, elaboration and/or evidence in support. In particular, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the judge’s decision is unlawful or failed take into account any relevant issues.

14. For all the above reasons, the appeal is devoid of merit. We therefore dismiss this appeal.

(Susan Kwan)
Vice President

(Lisa Wong)
Judge of the Court of
First Instance

The Applicant (Appellant), acting in person

[1] [2021] HKCFI 2456

[2] 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).

[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.