MURTAZA AHMED v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 538/2025, [2026] HKCA 113

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 2795

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 538 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 543 OF 2020)

________________________

BETWEEN

_____________________

_____________________

JUDGMENT

_____________________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of DHCJ YW Hew (“the Judge”) dated 11 July 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 19 March 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The Applicant is a national of Pakistan. He lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by Mohammad Aslam and his sons and would be arrested by the Pakistani Police if he returned to Pakistan due to incidents relating to land owned by his father. The Applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 30 January 2018, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 19 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 11 July 2025.

3.  The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 11 July 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 24 July 2025, the Applicant states the following that:

“1- The decisions are unlawful.

2- The Decisions failed to take into account many things and assues.

3- I have life’s danger in my home country Indonesia (sic); so why, I can’t go back to my Home Country. Please help me to save my life.”

5.  In the 4-page skeleton arguments filed on 16 December 2025, the Applicant essentially argues that:

(1) The Director has failed to appreciate or give proper weight to state acquiescence in the Applicant’s case.

(2) The Applicant was tortured at the behest of the police, state law enforcement agencies and those in the high ups of political circles.

(3) The state and its public officials failed to provide reasonable protection to its citizens.

(4) The Director has failed to take into account such argument or give sufficient weight before making his decision.

(5) While the Director had the relevant country of origin information which supported the Applicant’s case that the police in Pakistan would not be able to protect, he failed to consider or give sufficient weight to the same.

(6) The Director while referring to relevant country of origin information kept including meaning which suited his pre-conceived conclusion.

(7) Corruption and incompetency of the administration in Pakistan is still a serious problem.

(8) The Director has failed to attain a high standard of fairness as required by the Wednesbury test.

(9) The Board has failed to make sufficient enquiry before making its determination.

(10) The Applicant has no or limited options at his disposal to bring evidence before the Board when he was under the custody of the Immigration Department in Hong Kong.

(11) The Board has failed to give him sufficient chance to arrange for relevant evidence.

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 or 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 general 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 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.

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