ASHRAF MUHAMMAD JUNAID v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 963/2025, [2026] HKCA 122

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 4687

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 963 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1851 OF 2020)

_________________

_________________

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

Hon Eugene Fung J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

Introduction

1.  This is an appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Martin Wong (“Judge”) on 21 October 2025[1] dismissing the application for leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/adjudicator of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dated 22 May 2020. In that decision, the Board upheld the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 21 November 2018 rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

Background

2.  The applicant is a national of Pakistan born in 1992 and his claim was made on the basis that if he returned to Pakistan, the Shia men in his village area would harm or kill him due to a religious conflict. Details of the applicant’s background, the basis of his claim and the arguments advanced before the Board as well as the Board’s reasons for rejecting his appeal have all been set out in the Board’s decision: see [6] of the Form CALL-1. The Judge has set out the grounds advanced by the applicant in support of the application for leave to apply for judicial review and his reasons for refusing leave: see [3], [7] – [11] of the Form CALL-1. We shall not repeat them here.

Appeal to this Court

3.  On 3 November 2025, the applicant filed his Notice of Appeal against the Judge’s decision. His stated grounds of appeal were, essentially, that he disagreed with the decision, that the authorities relied on news that was not officially recognized, that the authorities did not properly investigate his claim, and that his claim was not determined fairly.

4.  As the applicant did not lodge any written submissions, the scheduled hearing of his appeal was vacated pursuant to the directions of the Court. We shall accordingly determine the appeal on the basis of the available documents and materials.

Discussion

5.  In assessing the merits of the appeal, we shall have regard to the legal principles which this Court has adopted in dealing with appeals in non-refoulement cases: see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14]; Re Md Shohel Sheak [2018] HKCA 714 at [13]; and Re Limbu Birkhaman [2019] HKCA 50 at [11]. In particular, the role of the Court in a judicial review is not to provide a further avenue of appeal. The Court 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. In the determination of an appeal against the refusal of leave by the Court of First Instance, the Court of Appeal will 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. It is not the role of this Court to examine the decision of the Board afresh as if the appeal were a fresh application for judicial review.

6.  In the present case, the Board found that there was no real risk of harm upon refoulement as alleged, because the applicant was not a witness of truth and that he fabricated his claims in relation to being harmed by Shia Muslims. The Board also found that he must have lost his fingers in an accident but not in the manner he claimed. The Board rejected the applicant’s evidence, both individually and cumulatively, in their entirety. Even if the Board was wrong in its conclusions, it found that the applicant’s problem was localised and that he could live in Lahore as he lived there uneventfully for 7 years prior to travelling to Hong Kong. These are findings of fact open to the Board based on the evidence it received and for the reasons it gave. The applicant has failed to show any reasonably arguable public law error in relation to the Board’s decision.     

7.  Equally, the applicant has not been able to demonstrate any error in the decision of the Judge or advance any viable ground of appeal against the Judge’s decision. Furthermore, the applicant has failed to provide any reasons for the delay for making the application for leave to apply for judicial review for consideration. We are not satisfied that there is any error in the Judge’s decision.

8.  The applicant’s appeal is accordingly dismissed.