RE KHAN YOUSAF

CACV 113/2026, [2026] HKCA 675

On appeal from [2026] HKCFI 545

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 113 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 331/2021)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.  This is an appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Michael Wong (“the Judge”)  given on 4 February 2026[1] (“the Leave Decision”)  refusing to grant leave for the applicant to apply for judicial review. The intended judicial review[2] was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/adjudicator of the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”)  dated 26 February 2021 (“the Board’s Decision”)  dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 23 February 2018 rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

2.  The applicant’s background, the basis of his claim and the Board’s reasons in reaching the Board’s Decision have been set out therein[3] as well as by the Judge in the Leave Decision at [11] and [20]-[27], which will not be repeated.

3.  The applicant was absent at the hearing of the leave application.  After considering the documents filed by the applicant, the Judge dismissed the application for the reasons stated at [17]-[41] of the Leave Decision.

Appeal to this court

4.  By a Notice of Appeal dated 10 February 2026, the applicant stated that he disagreed with “the decision maker authorities” and that such “authorities” relied on news which was “officially not recognised” and that they did not give the applicant justice.  

5.  By written submissions dated 19 March 2026 (which was filed late by one day), the applicant essentially repeated his complaints as stated in the Notice of Appeal, and further contended that the Board failed to take into account his personal background and experience in reaching its Decision.

6.  Given the short delay by the applicant in lodging his written submissions, we will consider the matters stated in his written submissions in determining the appeal.

7.  We heard the appeal on 1 April 2026, at which the applicant appeared in person.  At the hearing, the applicant had nothing to add to the matters already stated in the papers filed for the appeal.   

Discussion

8.  As this court has often stated, an appeal to the Court of Appeal is not a fresh application for judicial review.  It is necessary to identify some error on the part of the judge that would justify this court in intervening: see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14].  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.  An appeal is not the occasion for regurgitating arguments advanced and rejected by the judge or for running arguments which could and should have been raised but were not raised before the judge.  In the determination of an appeal, the Court of Appeal focuses on the decision of the judge and the court will only reverse that decision if an appellant could demonstrate that the judge made errors of law or failed to take account of relevant matters already placed before the court or was otherwise plainly wrong.

9.  The applicant has failed to identify any error on the part of the Judge and thus failed to raise any viable ground of appeal. The points advanced by the applicant were bare assertions unsupported by particulars or evidence.  General assertions of fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].

10.  In the present case, the applicant claimed that if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by his uncle due to a land dispute between his uncle and his late parents (both, as the applicant alleged, were killed by his uncle).  The Board found there to be material inconsistencies in the applicant’s evidence, and the applicant was also evasive in his demeanour when giving evidence (Board’s Decision, [28]).  As a result, in finding that the applicant was an untruthful witness, the Board rejected the applicant’s evidence on his uncle’s alleged killing of his parents and siblings, as well as the applicant’s evidence on the alleged land dispute (Board’s Decision, [29]). The Board therefore held that the uncle had no motive to harm the applicant should he return to Pakistan, and thus the risk of harm upon refoulement was low (Board’s Decision, [39]). 

11.  In any event, the Board was of the view that there was adequate state protection and suitable options of internal relocation available to the applicant, which would minimise the risk of harm, if any.  These were factual findings open to the Board on the evidence, and were sufficiently canvassed and considered by the Judge in the Leave Decision at [17]-[41].  We see no basis to interfere.  

12.  The applicant has failed to demonstrate how the Board had acted unlawfully or procedurally unfairly in reaching its Decision, or how such Decision could be said to be Wednesbury unreasonable.

13.  As we have noted, the applicant advanced no viable grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision.  There is therefore no merit in the appeal and we dismiss the appeal accordingly.