YASER SHAIKH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 466/2025, [2026] HKCA 178

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 2703

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 466 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 340 OF 2020)

________________________

BETWEEN

_____________________

_____________________

JUDGMENT

_____________________

The Court:

Introduction

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Michael Wong (“the Judge”) dated 2 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 4 March 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”).

Background

2.  The applicant is a national of India. On 4 November 2014, he lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by the creditor who was a politician from the India Congress Party for an outstanding loan. Details of the applicant’s claim have been summarized in the Board’s Decision, the hyperlink to which can be found in the CALL-1 Form.

3.  By a Notice of Decision dated 21 November 2018 (“the Director’s Decision”), the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) rejected the applicant’s non-refoulement claim on all applicable grounds, namely: BOR 2 risk[1], BOR 3 risk[2], persecution risk[3], and risk of torture[4].

4.  The applicant appealed the Director’s Decision to the Board. The Board dismissed the applicant’s appeal, and confirmed the Director’s Decision. Details of the Board’s reasoning and findings can be found in the Board’s Decision.

The Judge’s decision

5.  On 9 March 2020, the applicant filed a Form 86 to apply for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. He did not advance any grounds for judicial review in the Form 86, nor in the supporting affirmation of the same date.

6.  The Judge gave the decision refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review for the reasons that the Board did assess the applicant’s case as claimed, and the Board could reach its decision based on the information available before it. The Judge also held that there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality found in the Board’s Decision. Details of the Judge’s reasoning and findings can be found in the CALL-1 Form.

Grounds of appeal

7.  In the Notice of Appeal filed on 4 July 2025, the applicant states that he will face hardship if he is to return to his home country, that the Board has significantly relied on the source of news which is not officially recognised or is simply hearsay, that the Board has relied on some cases which are outdated considering the dramatic changes, and that the lack of credible source of information has resulted in the Board making groundless speculations.

8.  The applicant has failed to lodge written submissions in support of his appeal in accordance with the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 1 December 2025. Accordingly, he is deemed to have waived the right to have an oral hearing of his appeal and elected to have his appeal disposed of on paper. Having considered the documents before us, we consider that it is appropriate to deal with the applicant’s appeal on paper without an oral hearing.

Legal principles

9.  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).

10.  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.

Discussion & disposition

11.  The matters raised in the applicant’s Notice of Appeal are mere general and bald assertions regarding the decisions of the Board without any substantial or credible reasons in support. They do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the Order.

12.  The applicant has failed to identify or show any error in the Order refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review, or raise any viable ground of appeal against the Order. There is also no error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board in the present case.

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