BILAL MUHAMMAD UMAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 927/2025, [2026] HKCA 55

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 4756

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 927 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 822 OF 2020)

________________________

_____________________

_____________________

J U D G M E N T

_____________________

Hon Chow JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Levy dated 21 October 2025 (“the Order”) refusing the Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 23 April 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 14 January 2020 refusing his non-refoulement claim refusing his non-refoulement claim.

2.  The Applicant is a Pakistani national. He claimed to have entered Hong Kong illegally on 23 November 2019, and was arrested on the same date. He raised a non-refoulement claim on the basis that if he returned to Pakistan, he would be harmed or killed by the father of his ex‑girlfriend due to caste conflicts and a land dispute. The background facts of the Applicant’s claim and the Board’s reasons for dismissing his appeal are set out in the Board Decision referred to in paragraph 1 of the CALL-1 From dated 21 October 2025 ([2025] HKCFI 4756) (“the Leave Decision”), and the Deputy Judge’s reasons for her decision are set out in paragraphs 3 to 8 of the Leave Decision. They will not be repeated here.

3.  In the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal filed on 24 October 2025 against the Order, the Applicant stated the following:

“I am disagree with the decision maker authorities. The decision made by the Director of Immigration. As well the decision made by the Adjudicator of Torture Claim Appeal Board. There is not proper investigation in my claim. I do not think my case determined fairly.” [sic]

4.  The Applicant lodged his written submissions in support of his appeal on 22 December 2025. In those submissions, he complained that he did not understand how his case was determined, and was not provided with legal and language assistance. He also complained of procedural unfairness, and a lack of sound judgment and fairness. He said that quick disposal of his case was unacceptable.

5.  At the hearing of his appeal on 15 January 2026, the Applicant stated that he was not guided properly on what documents from local authorities were required to be produced to support his claim.

6.  The relevant legal principles governing appeals against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in non-refoulement cases are well settled. In particular, 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. The Court’s role is not to examine the decision maker’s decision afresh as if it were a fresh application for judicial review. See Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14(6)].

7.  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 are errors 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.

8.  It is incumbent on the Applicant in this appeal to point out errors or possible errors in the Leave Decision with sufficient particulars and specifics. He has failed to do so. His allegations and complaints are mainly directed at the Director/the Adjudicator. They cannot constitute valid grounds of appeal against the Order. On this ground alone, the Applicant’s appeal must be dismissed.

9.  In any event, the Applicant’s assertions are all general, bare and vague allegations unsupported by particulars or evidence. General and bare assertions of his fear of harm or ill treatment upon refoulement do not constitute valid grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6]. In so far as the Applicant complains about the lack of legal and language assistance, it is well established that the high standard of fairness does not entitle a non-refoulement claimant to an absolute right to free legal representation or language assistance at all stages of the proceedings: Re Zunariyah [2018] HKCA 14. The Applicant had available to him legal representation and language assistance when his claim was assessed by the Director. He also had available to him language assistance in his appeal before the Board. It is noted that the Applicant’s court documents are written in English, indicating that either the Applicant knows English or has means and access to language assistance when needed: Re Gurnishan Singh [2018] HKCA 704 at [13]. We see no basis to disturb the Order based on these complaints.

10.  For the above reasons, the Applicant’s appeal is without merit, and is dismissed.