SHAH TABEER HUSSAIN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 460/2025, [2026] HKCA 834

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 1890

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 460 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2874 OF 2019)

________________________

_____________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of DHCJ KW Lung (“the Judge”) dated 17 June 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 10 October 2017 (“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 Haifri and Isfaq of the Sipath-e-Salhaba group of the Sunni sect because of a land dispute over the right to use a path owned by the group to a mosque in his village, and the Pakistani police would arrest and torture him for committing robberies and involving in terrorist activities in the Sunni area. The Applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 24 October 2014 and 10 May 2017, and the appeal against the Director’s decisions was rejected by the Board on 10 October 2017. Details of the Applicant’s claim and the Board’s reasons for rejecting the Applicant’s appeal can be found in the judgment dated 17 June 2025 (“the Judgment”).  

3.  The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 17 June 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 30 June 2025, the Applicant stated that:

“I am writing this grounds regarding my judicial review dismissed by high court but still I have problem by my enimies and I will obtain my suporting document as soon as possible or before my oral hearing.” 

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.  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.

9.  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.

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