Your World of Legal Intelligence
 Hong Kong | 1-800-335-6202

Re Kashif Anwar

Judgment Cited authorities 3 Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Judgment Date17 May 2019
Neutral Citation[2019] HKCA 530
Judgement NumberCACV5/2019
Subject MatterCivil Appeal
CourtCourt of Appeal (Hong Kong)
CACV5/2019 RE KASHIF ANWAR

CACV 5/2019

[2019] HKCA 530

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 795 OF 2017)

_____________________

RE: KASHIF ANWAR Applicant

_____________________

Before: Hon Cheung, Yuen and Barma JJA in Court
Date of Judgment: 17 May 2019

_____________________

J U D G M E N T

_____________________

Hon Cheung JA (giving the Judgment of the Court) :

1) The appeal

1.1 This is an appeal by the applicant against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K. W. Lung given on 24 December 2018 in which he refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review against the decisions of the Director of Immigration and the Torture Claims Appeal Board.

1.2 The applicant did not comply with the directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals of 28 January 2019 and did not lodge any skeleton submission. The original hearing fixed for 7 May 2019 was hence vacated, and the applicant’s appeal is now being considered on paper.

2) Factual background

2.1 The applicant is a national of Pakistan. He entered Hong Kong illegally on 25 December 2015. He raised a non‑refoulement claim on 12 January 2017.

2.2 The basis of the applicant’s claim is that he would be harmed or killed by his paternal uncles, who were supporters of the Pakistan Muslim League‑Q over a dispute of a family property. The uncles have obtained the assistance from the intended buyers of the family property and have been harassing the applicant and his family.

2.3 The background facts have been summarized in the decision of the Judge at [11]-[12].


3) The Director’s Decision

3. The Director decided against the applicant’s torture claim on 30 June 2017. The decision covered Bill of Rights Article 3 (torture/inhuman treatment) risk (‘BOR 3’), Bill of Rights Article 2 (right to life) risk (‘BOR 2’), as well as other statutory and convention rights against torture and persecution (‘the Director’s Decision’).

4) The Board’s Decision

4.1 The applicant appealed against the Director’s Decision to the Board on 13 July 2017. After a hearing held on 18 September 2017, the Board dismissed the applicant’s appeal on 3 October 2017 (‘the Board’s Decision’).

4.2 The Board found that the uncles did not, in fact, intend to take the applicant’s life, as opposed to what the applicant believed. The uncles could have instructed the intended buyers to kill him but they did not. Upon assessment of the evidence, the Board found that the applicant himself admitted that the uncles’ purpose was only to threaten him,...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT