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

CACV 494/2025, [2026] HKCA 443

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 2899

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 494 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 3589 OF 2019)

________________________

BETWEEN

_____________________

_____________________

JUDGMENT

_____________________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Teresa Wu (“the Judge”) dated 7 July 2025 (“the Order”) refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 14 November 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The Applicant is a national of Pakistan.[1] On 13 July 2007, the Applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by members of the Muslim Students Federation, which was closely associated with the Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz).[2] The Applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 21 February 2017, and the appeal against the Director’s Decision was rejected by the Board on 14 November 2019. 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 CALL-1 Form dated 7 July 2025.[3]

3.  The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 7 July 2025. Details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can be found in the judgment.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

4.  In the Notice of Appeal filed on 14 July 2025, the Applicant principally complains of an absence of language and legal assistance being provided to him. The applicant also complains that the Court did not adequately scrutinize the assumption of the Board that he could easily relocate within Pakistan, that the Judge did not discuss the grounds for his leave application, that there are no other avenues for a non-refoulement claimant to seek an appeal against a decision made purely against credibility, and that the Judge did not hold a hearing for him to explain the errors in the Board’s Decision.

5.  In the 5-page written submissions lodged on 22 January 2026, the Applicant complains that while accepting the main facts of his claim, the Board did not explain why it found there was a lack of supporting evidence for his claim, that the Board treated his delay and the timing of documents as a strong indicator of fabrication without fairly weighing his explanations, that the Board did not give him a fair opportunity to respond to concerns about new documents, and that the Board did not adequately consider the country context and how private actors and local networks can still pose danger over time.

6.  At the hearing on 27 February 2026, the applicant said that the court did not accept his submissions. He reiterated that his life would be in danger if he were to be returned to his home country. He requested a chance to present new documents to the Board.

DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION

7.  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 was a fresh application for judicial review (see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, at §14(6)).

8.  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.

9.  Contrary to the complaint of not having a hearing for his leave application, the Applicant did attend a hearing in open court where he drew the Judge’s attention to certain parts of the Board’s Decision but the Judge was not satisfied that there was sufficient evidence to challenge the Board’s Decision.[4]

10.  The Judge also addressed the grounds for his leave application and give detailed reasons for rejecting it in the CALL-1 Form.[5]

11.  As to the complaint of lacking legal and language assistance, it has been repeatedly emphasised by this Court that as a matter of law, a non-refoulement claimant is not entitled to free legal representation at all stages of the process and that the high standard of fairness required by law does not entail interpretation service being made available to an applicant all the time as he desires: Re Pante Luisa Tuppil [2025] HKCA 1123 at [11].

12.  The matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal, written and oral submissions do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision. The Applicant has failed to identify or show any error in the Judge’s decision refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review, or raise any viable ground of appeal against the Order.

13.  The Applicant’s appeal has no merit, and is dismissed.