YAQOOB KHURRAM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 589/2025, [2026] HKCA 656

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 3306

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 589 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 841 OF 2020)

________________________

_____________________

______________

J U D G M E N T

______________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Lewis Law (“the Judge”) dated 1 August 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 27 April 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The Applicant is a national of Pakistan. On 22 January 2016, the Applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by Mr Bhatti as a result of his refusal to join the Pakistan Muslim League, as he was a supporter of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Inshaf.[1]  The Applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 30 October 2018, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 27 April 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 CALL-1 Form dated 1 August 2025.[2]

3.  The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 1 August 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 11 August 2025, the Applicant states that:

“I AM THE APPLICANT HERE IN THE DECISION MADE BY DEPUTY HIGH COURT JUDGE LEWIS LAW HAS BEEN REACHED UNFAIRLY WITHOUT MEBERING GIVEN ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO CLARIFY MY CASE AND THE SITUATION IN MY COUNTRY.” (sic)

5.  In the written submissions filed on 27 January 2026, the Applicant essentially argues that:

(1)  The Director and the Board wrongly assessed the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

(2)  The Applicant’s right to life is protected under the Basic Law and the Bill of Rights.

(3)  The Director failed to give sufficient weight to state acquiescence, or failed to take such argument into account.

(4)  The Board placed too much reliance on country of origin information and failed to take into account the Applicant’s personal background and experience.

(5)  The Director failed to give enough weight to country of origin information or to take into account the argument that the police in the Applicant’s country would not be able to protect him.

(6)  The Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal based on the findings which the Board ought to allow the appeal.

6.  The above written submissions were lodged beyond the deadline imposed by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 11 December 2025, that is, 24 December 2025. Accordingly, the Applicant is deemed to have waived the right to have an oral hearing of the appeal and elect to have the 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.

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 Applicant’s assertion that he was not given the opportunity to clarify his case and the situation in his country, he attended a hearing before the Judge in his application for leave to apply for judicial review where he did clarify his case and the situation in his country.[3] The Judge held that “[i]f the Applicant intends to argue that the fresh evidence demonstrates a significant change of circumstances in his home country” since the Board’s Decision which “shows that his risk of being harmed/killed to have been heightened”, he should proceed by way of a different procedure.[4]

10.  The matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal and written submissions are all general allegations without particulars. They do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision.

11.  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.

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