BILAL AHMAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 384/2025, [2026] HKCA 684

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 2199

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 384 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 520 OF 2020)

________________________

BETWEEN

_____________________

_____________________

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

_____________________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Philips Wong (“the Judge”) dated 29 May 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 26 March 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The Applicant is a national of Pakistan. On 19 March 2014, the Applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by Ishfaq as a result of a commercial dispute.[1] The Applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 24 September 2018, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 26 March 2020. Details of the Applicant’s claim and the Board’s reasons for rejecting the Applicant’s appeal can be found in the Board’s Decision, the hyperlink to which can be found in the CALL-1 Form dated 29 May 2025.[2]

3.  The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 29 May 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 filed on 10 June 2025, the Applicant states the following that:

“I am disagree with the decision maker authorities. The decision made by Director of Immigration As well as decision make by Adjudicator of the Torture Claim Appeal Board. I do not think my claim determined fairly.” (sic)

5.  In the 5-page written submissions lodged on 16 February 2026, apart from making generic submissions on the general principles of law relating to non-refoulement claims and subsequent claims, the Applicant essentially argues that due to the new and compelling circumstances since the decision on his previous claim, his life and safety would be in imminent danger upon returning to his home country, and these developments constitute substantial new grounds that were not previously available and directly affect his eligibility for protection, but he did not explain what such new and compelling circumstances are.

6.  At the hearing on 24 March 2026, the applicant was absent. We dismissed his appeal with reasons to be handed down, which we now do.

DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION

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. 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.