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

CACV 403/2025, [2026] HKCA 175

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 2297

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 403 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 524 OF 2020)

__________________________

BETWEEN

__________________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

The Court:

Introduction

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Philips Wong (“the Judge”) given in the Form CALL-1 dated 6 June 2025[1] (the “Form CALL-1”) dismissing his application for leave to judicially review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dismissing his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) and rejecting his non-refoulement protection claim.

The applicant’s claim and the Judge’s decision

2.  The applicant is a national of Pakistan. The background to the applicant’s non-refoulement claim, together with the submissions he advanced, is fully set out in the Board’s decision (accessible via the hyperlink in the Judge’s Form CALL-1). Having considered the applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review and the decisions of the Director and the Board, the Judge concluded that the applicant’s intended challenge did not have any realistic prospect of success, and accordingly refused leave and dismissed the application. The Judge’s analysis and reasons are on record, and it is unnecessary to repeat them here.

The appeal

3.  By a notice of appeal filed on 16 June 2025, the applicant sought to appeal the Judge’s order to this court. For the grounds of appeal, the applicant stated that he disagrees with the Judge’s order in the Form Call-1 and that he requests this court to reconsider his application.

4.  The appeal was scheduled to be heard on 28 January 2026. The applicant has failed to lodge any skeleton argument in support of his appeal in accordance with the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 1 December 2025. Accordingly, the applicant is deemed to have waived his right to have an oral hearing of the appeal, and elected to have the appeal disposed of on paper.

Our reasons for decision

5.  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)).

6.  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. No such error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board is shown in the present case.

7.  In our view, the matters set out in the notice of appeal failed to identify any error on the part of the Judge and do not amount to any viable ground of appeal. The applicant’s appeal is devoid of merits. We dismiss it accordingly.