SHEIKH REHMAN ZULFIQAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 809/2025, [2026] HKCA 754

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 3634

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 809 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 3335 OF 2019)

________________________

_____________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of DHCJ KW Lung (“the Judge”) dated 16 September 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 21 October 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The Applicant is a national of Pakistan. On 17 August 2014, the Applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that he was threatened and/or ill-treated by some men and that caused him to leave Pakistan. On 3 February 2016, the Applicant wrote to the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) to withdraw his claim, and his withdrawal was accepted by the Director on 11 February 2016. On 9 September 2016, the Applicant made a request to the Director to re-open his claim, alleging he was still in danger. His request was rejected by the Director on 8 November 2016, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 21 October 2019.  

3.  The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 16 September 2025. Details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can be found in the CALL-1 Form.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

4.  In the Notice of Appeal filed on 30 September 2025, the Applicant stated that:

“… the grounds of this appeal are that the Applicant will face hardship if he is to return back to his home country and that the Torture Claims Appeal Board has significantly relied on the source of news which is not officially recognized, or it is simply hearsay. They have also relied on some cases which are outdated considering the dramatic changes. The lack of credible source of information has resulted in them making groundless speculations.”

5.  The Applicant has failed to lodge written submissions in support of the appeal in accordance with the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals. Accordingly, the Applicant is deemed to have waived the right to have an oral hearing of the appeal and elected to have the appeal disposed of on paper.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

6.  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)).

7.  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 are errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022.

DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION

8.  The matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal are all bare allegations without particulars and back substance. They do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision.

9.  The Applicant has failed to identify or substantiate 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.

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