SHAIKH MOHAMMED FEROZ v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 597/2025, [2026] HKCA 161

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 3239

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 597 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1084 OF 2020)

__________________________

__________________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

The Court:

Introduction

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Val Chow (“the Judge”) dated 1 August 2025,[1] refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board”) dated 21 May 2020 (the “Board’s Decision”) whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (the “Director”) dated 25 April 2018 (the “Director’s Decision”).

The applicant’s claim and the Judge’s decision

2.  The applicant is a national of India. In his non-refoulement claim form filed with the Immigration Department dated 20 March 2018, he lodged a claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by an individual known as “Kumar” as the applicant failed to repay a debt owed to Kumar. The applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director, and his appeal against it was rejected by the Board on 21 May 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 Form CALL-1.

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

The appeal

4.  By a notice of appeal filed on 12 August 2025, the applicant sought to appeal the Judge’s decision to this court. In the grounds of appeal, the applicant stated that he would face hardship should he be refouled, and that the Board has significantly relied on the sources of news which is not officially recognised or is simply hearsay, that they have also relied on some cases which are outdated considering the dramatic changes, and that the lack of credible source of information has resulted in them making groundless speculations, but without providing further particulars or elaboration.

5.  In his 4-page written submissions lodged on 22 December 2025, the applicant recited a number of cases and made generic submissions on the general principles of law relating to non-refoulement claims.

6.  At the hearing, the applicant handed up a letter, highlighting his predicaments if he were to be refouled to his home country. He also referred to the medical condition of his daughter who is, according to him, receiving medical care in the Queen Elizabeth Hospital.

Our reasons for decision

7.  The Court of Appeal’s general approach in dealing with appeals in non-refoulement cases is set out in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, at §14. In particular, 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 is a fresh application for judicial review (see Nupur Mst, at §14(6)).

8.  Further, 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 is an error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022. In the present case, the Judge found no such error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board.

9.  It is incumbent on the applicant to point out the Judge's errors with sufficient particulars and specifics. We are of the view that the matters set out in the notice of appeal, his written submissions and the letter he handed up in Court 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.

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