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

CACV 534/2025, [2026] HKCA 444

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 2378

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 534 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 3086 OF 2019)

________________________

BETWEEN

_____________________

_____________________

JUDGMENT

_____________________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung (“the Judge”) dated 9 July 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 October 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The Applicant is a national of Pakistan. On 20 May 2014, the Applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by a group under the Pakistan Muslim League (N Group) because he was a supporter of the Pakistan People’s Party.[1] The Applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 11 August 2014[2] and 2 May 2017[3], and the appeals against the Director’s decisions were rejected by the Board on 27 April 2017 and 4 October 2019 respectively. Details of the Applicant’s claim and the Board’s reasons for rejecting the Applicant’s appeals can be found in the Judgment dated 9 July 2025 (“the Judgment”).

3.  The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 9 July 2025. Details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can be found in the Judgment.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

4.  In the Notice of Appeal filed on 22 July 2025, the Applicant states the following that:

“I would like to reject and review the decision made by the court. They disregard my dangerous situation.” (sic)

5.  In the 3-page written submissions lodged on 20 January 2026, apart from describing the situation in his home country, the Applicant essentially argues that:

(1) The country of origin information stated by the Board was based on “knowledge by their own state report without understanding the cultural context in Pakistan”.

(2) As a Muslim country, Pakistan is heavily communal, and it is easy to detect and track one person down.

(3) The Judge failed to understand and examine his case according to the local context, leading to erroneous outcome.

6.  At the hearing on 27 February 2026, the applicant requested a review of his case. He added that he is sick, suffering from hepatitis and liver problem.

7.  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)).

8.  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.

9.  The matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal and written submissions are all general allegations without particulars. His medical condition, even if true, does not assist him in the appeal. They do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision.

10.  The Applicant has failed to identify or show 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.

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