HAYAT KHIZAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 431/2025, [2026] HKCA 649

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 2493

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 431 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 3871 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Anthony Chan JA (giving the Judgment of the Court)  :

Introduction

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims)  Martin Wong (“Judge”)  dated 17 June 2025 (“Order”)  refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”)  dated 19 December 2019 (“Board’s Decision”).

Background

2.  The Applicant is a national of Pakistan. On 2 September 2016, the Applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by people of opposing political affiliation in Pakistan.  The Applicant’s claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“Director”)  on 21 February 2018, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 19 December 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 17 June 2025[1].

3.  The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 17 June 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 23 June 2025, the Applicant states the following :

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

5.  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 3 March 2026.  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.  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

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 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 and Disposition

8.  Contrary to the complaint of having no opportunity to clarify his case and the situation in his home country, the Applicant attended the hearing before the Judge but failed to put forward any valid ground to challenge the Board’s Decision[2].

9.  All the matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal are general allegations without particulars.  They do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision.

10.  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. 

11.  The Applicant’s appeal has no merit, and is dismissed with no order as to costs.