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

CACV 876/2025, [2026] HKCA 853

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 4162

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 876 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1287 OF 2020)

________________________

_____________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of DHCJ (Non-refoulement Claims) YW Hew (“the Judge”) dated 30 September 2025 (“the Order”) refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 4 June 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The Applicant is a national of Pakistan. The Applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by sons of his paternal uncle, Mustafa. The Applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 12 March 2015 and 2 February 2017, and the appeal against the Director’s decisions were rejected by the Board on 29 February 2016 and 4 June 2020 respectively. Details of the Applicant’s claim and the Board’s reasons for rejecting the Applicant’s appeals can be found in the Board’s decisions.

3.  The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 30 September 2025. Details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can be found in the CALL-1 Form.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

4.  In the Notice of Appeal dated 14 October 2025, the Applicant principally complained about the absence of language and legal assistance provided to him. He complained that the court “should have held a hearing” in order for him to “explain errors” in the Board’s Decision with the help of an interpreter. He also complained about the lack of other avenues for a non-refoulement claimants to appeal the decisions.

5.  The Applicant has failed to lodge written submissions in support of the appeal in accordance with the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals. Accordingly, the Applicant is deemed to have waived the right to have an oral hearing of the appeal and elected to have the appeal disposed of on paper. Having considered the documents before us, we consider that it is appropriate to deal with the Applicant’s appeal on paper without an oral hearing.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

6.  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)).

7.  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 below will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there are errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022.

DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION

8.  We are unpersuaded by the Applicant’s complaint of lack of legal and language assistance. As a matter of law, a non-refoulement claimant is not entitled to free legal representation at all stages of the process, and the high standard of fairness required by law would not entail an interpretation service to be made available at any time as the applicant desired. See Re Gurnishan Singh [2018] HKCA 704 at §§11 and 13. It is further noted that the Applicant was able to, either by himself or with assistance from others, lodge with the court applications written in comprehensible English.

9.  Contrary to the complaint of not having an opportunity to clarify his case, the Applicant attended a hearing in open court before the Judge but failed to raise any valid grounds to challenge the Board’s findings.

10.  The matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal are all bare allegations without particulars. They do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision.

11.  The Applicant has failed to identify or substantiate any error in the Judge’s decision refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review, or raise any viable ground of appeal against the Order.

12.  The Applicant’s appeal has no merit, and is dismissed.