AKBAR SHAH MUHAMMAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 417/2025, [2026] HKCA 168

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 2319

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 417 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 579 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) Philips Wong (“the Judge”) dated 12 June 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 2 March 2020 (the “Board’s Decision”) whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (the “Director”) dated 28 December 2017 (the “Director’s Decision”).

The applicant’s claim and the Judge’s decision

2.  The applicant is a national of Pakistan. In his non-refoulement claim form filed with the Immigration Department dated 12 December 2017, he alleged that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by members of the Pakistan Muslim League (N) (“PML(N)”) because he supported a rival political party, the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (“PTI”). The applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director, and his appeal against it was rejected by the Board on 2 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 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 18 June 2025, the applicant sought to appeal the Judge’s decision. In the grounds of appeal, the applicant stated that “I am disagree with my decision maker authorities. I opposed the decision made by authorities. They were totally relied on some web news which officially not recognized. I do not think my claim determined fairly.” He disagreed with the decision without specifying one, and that the Board had wrongfully relied on “web news which officially recognised”, but without providing any particulars or elaboration.

5.  In the applicant’s skeleton submissions lodged 18 December 2025, he argued that :

(1)  the Director had failed to appreciate or give the proper importance or weight to the presence of state acquiescence in his case;

(2)  the Board acted unreasonably and was procedurally unfair by placing too much reliance on the Country of Origin information (“COI”) but failed to take into account his personal background and experience;

(3)  the Director failed to place sufficient weight on his COI which “supported the aversions that the police in his country would not be able to protect”.

He did not indicate in his submissions any complaint against or identify any error made by the Judge in dismissing his application for leave to take out a judicial review.

6.  At the hearing on 30 January 2026, the applicant had nothing to add to his written submissions.

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.  Although it is incumbent on the applicant to do so, the matters set out in the notice of appeal or his written submissions 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.