YOUSAF MUHAMMAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 848/2025, [2026] HKCA 244

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 4438

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 848 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2334 OF 2020)

_____________________

_____________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of DHCJ (Non-refoulement Claims) Philips Wong (“the Judge”) dated 23 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 27 November 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The Applicant is a national of Pakistan. On 3 August 2016, the Applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by his father-in-law, Mr Gul Zada. The Applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 27 August 2018, and his appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 27 November 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.

3.  The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 23 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 his Notice of Appeal filed on 8 October 2025, the Applicant states the following:

“I am Disagree with the Decision Maker authorities. This decision same like torture claims appeal Board and director of Immegration, They not give me Justice. Sir my life have so danger in my Home country. Our country police not protect our life Then, we come here. Here also not have Justice Then what will I do. I do not think my claim so Fast determined. Please Recheck my claim.”

5.  The Applicant has filed his 10-paragraph skeleton argument on 9 January 2026 which we have considered carefully.

6.  The appeal was heard on 12 February 2026. The Applicant attended the hearing in person with the assistance of an Urdu interpreter and added that there is no justice in his country.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

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 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

9.  The matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal and skeleton argument are all 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.