MOHAMMED AKRAM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CACV 967/2025, [2026] HKCA 196

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 5060

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 967 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 3529 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon G Lam JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

Introduction

1.  This is an appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Michael Wong (“Judge”)  on 23 October 2025 dismissing the applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/adjudicator of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”)  dated 28 November 2017.  In that decision, the Board upheld the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”)  dated 9 December 2016 rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

Background

2.  The applicant is a national of India born in 1988 and his claim was made on the basis that if he returned to India, his creditor (Naseem)  would harm or kill him due to his inability to repay the loan.  Details of the applicant’s background, the basis of his claim and the arguments advanced before the Board as well as the Board’s reasons for rejecting his appeal have all been set out in the Board’s decision: see [1] of the Form CALL-1.  The Judge has set out the grounds advanced by the applicant in support of the application for leave to apply for judicial review and his reasons for refusing leave: see [16] – [32] of the Form CALL-1.  We shall not repeat them here.

Appeal to this Court

3.  On 4 November 2025, the applicant filed his Notice of Appeal against the Judge’s decision.  His stated grounds of appeal were, essentially, that the court did not scrutinize his problem properly and that he would be killed by his enemies.

4.  The applicant has lodged written submissions in which he stated that the Judge erred in not finding the procedural unfairness of the Director and the Board as they were required to give reasons to justify their decisions, that the Judge did not analyse his claim properly, that the Board failed to give him sufficient opportunity to arrange relevant evidence, that his human rights and the high standard of fairness are involved, that the Board had significantly relied on sources of news that were not officially recognized or simply hearsay, and that the Board failed to assess whether state protection existed in his home country.  He further repeated the basis of his non-refoulement claim.

5.  At the hearing, the applicant stated that he had nothing further to add.

Discussion

6.  In assessing the merits of the appeal, we shall have regard to the legal principles which this Court has adopted in dealing with appeals in non-refoulement cases: see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14]; Re Md Shohel Sheak [2018] HKCA 714 at [13]; and Re Limbu Birkhaman [2019] HKCA 50 at [11].  In particular, the role of the Court in a judicial review is not to provide a further avenue of appeal.  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.  In the determination of an appeal against the refusal of leave by the Court of First Instance, the Court of Appeal will 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.  It is not the role of this Court to examine the decision of the Board afresh as if the appeal were a fresh application for judicial review.

7.  In the present case, the Board accepted that the applicant had taken out a loan from his creditor but found that there was no real risk of harm upon refoulement, because the dispute was private and localized without state involvement, it had been more than 12 years since the applicant left India, reasonable state protection was available, and internal relocation to another part of India was viable as he had previously experienced no issues when living in an area of Kolkata only 15 minutes away from his home area.  These are findings of fact open to the Board based on the evidence it received and for the reasons it gave.  At the hearing, the applicant did not answer any questions from the Board and did not submit further evidence. The applicant has failed to show any reasonably arguable public law error in relation to the Board’s decision.

8.  Equally, the applicant has not been able to demonstrate any error in the decision of the Judge or advance any viable ground of appeal against the Judge’s decision.  At the hearing, the applicant did not explain any reason for the 21-month delay in making the application for leave to apply for judicial review and also did not raise or submit any additional documents.  We are not satisfied that there is any error in the Judge’s decision.

9.  The applicant’s appeal is accordingly dismissed.