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

CACV 414/2025, [2026] HKCA 111

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 2309

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 414 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 558 OF 2020)

__________________________

BETWEEN

__________________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

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”) given in the Form CALL-1 and the Order dated 12 June 2025[1] refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “Board”) dated 16 March 2020 (the “Board’s Decision”) whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (the “Director”) dated 13 November 2018 (the “Director’s Decision”) and rejecting his non-refoulement claim.

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 October 2018, he lodged a claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by members of the Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan (“SSP”) or Lashkar-e-Jhangvi for having formerly been a member of SSP. The applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director’s Decision, and his appeal against it was rejected by the Board on 16 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 17 June 2025, the applicant sought to appeal the Judge’s decision to this court. For the grounds of appeal, the applicant stated that “I plead to the Court of Appeal to reconsider my Application. There’s lot of mistakes in the decision. My claim is real.”, but without providing further particulars or elaboration.

5.  The appeal was heard on 28 January 2026. The applicant attended the hearing in person with the assistance of an Urdu interpreter and had nothing to add to his written submissions.

6.  In the applicant’s written submission lodged on 22 December 2025, he stated that:

“My name is Akhtar Shahid from Pakistan I entered Hong Kong illegally where I surrendered to the Immigration Department on 22 May 2025. I submitted my Non-Refoulement Claims petition on 26 August 2015 and 4 November 2015. I was released from Immigration Department on recognizance. I did not go back to my country because my life in danger. I can be killed or harmed if I go back. 3 months the screening interview by the Immigration officer. Director of Immigration dismissed my claims with no proper reason. I went to Torture claims appeal Board/Non-Refoulment Claims petition office to submit my appeal petition.

Few weeks after the submission of my appeal petition, I received a notice of hearing. During the hearing I explained all my situation to the Adjudicator, but still dismissed my Application. I was shok (sic) because my problem is true. I went to High Court to apply for leave, on 12 June 2025 the Judge of High Court rejected my application. I don’t agree with the Judgement. Please review my application and reconsider the Judgement.”

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 below 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, no such error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board was observed by the Judge.

9.  It is incumbent on the applicant to point out the Judge’s errors with sufficient particulars. We are of the view that the matters set out in the notice of appeal or his written submission 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.

[1]   [2025] HKCFI 2309