KHAN SARFARAZ NAWAZ v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 363/2025, [2026] HKCA 336

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 2181

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 363 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 38 OF 2020)

__________________________

__________________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of High Court Judge Fung (“the Judge”) dated 22 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 23 December 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”) whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (the “Director”) dated 8 May 2017 (“the Director’s Decision”) rejecting his non‑refoulement protection claim regarding his right to life under Article 2 (“BOR 2 Risk”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The applicant is a national of India. He lodged his non-refoulement claim with the Immigration Department on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by his creditor over his outstanding debts, and over a dispute between his cousin and his wife’s brother over a family dispute. The applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director, and his appeals against them were rejected by the Board. A summary of the applicant’s background, his claim and his process before the Director and the Board can be found in the Form CALL-1.

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

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

4.  By a notice of appeal filed on 3 June 2025, the applicant sought to appeal the Judge’s decision to this court. For the grounds of appeal, the applicant stated that “I would like to tell that I have life problem by my Graditer (Loan Shark) still. My cousin brother Rahis was have separtion case still going on in court and I use to help to Rahis therefore if I go my life become unserten”.

5.  In the applicant’s skeleton argument lodged on 30 December 2025, he reiterated his claim that he would be killed by his enemies and asserted that the Judge erred in law, and that his decision was unfair and unreasonable.

6.  The appeal was heard on 24 February 2026. The applicant attended the hearing in person with the assistance of a Hindi interpreter and added that he had to receive medical treatment in Hong Kong.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

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 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

9.  In the present case, no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board was detected by the Judge or was pointed out by the applicant apart from the bare assertions stated in his grounds of appeal and in his skeleton argument.

10.  It is incumbent on the applicant to point out the Judge's errors with sufficient particulars. In our view, the matters set out in the applicant’s notice of appeal and skeleton argument failed to identify any error on the part of the Judge. They do not constitute any viable grounds of appeal and lack substance. We see no basis to interfere with the Judge’s decision.

11.  For the above reasons, the applicant’s appeal is devoid of merits. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.