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

CACV 810/2025, [2026] HKCA 424

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 4206

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 810 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 372 OF 2020)

________________________

_____________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of DHCJ Michael Wong (“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 17 January 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The Applicant is a national of Pakistan. The Applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by the family of his deceased girlfriend and he would face arrest for her murder even though he was innocent.  The Applicant’s claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 30 July 2018, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 17 January 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 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 the following:

“THE HIGH COURT DID NOT CONSIDER MY JR. ADJUDICATOR DID NOT GIVE ME CORRECT DECISION. HIS DECISION IS FULL OF WRONG. PLEASE GRANT MY LEAVE.”

5.  In the 4-page written submission filed on 28 January 2026, apart from reiterating his non-refoulement claim, the Applicant essentially contested the Director’s, the Board’s and the Judge’s decision as containing errors of law, as being unfair and unreasonable without advancing any substantive argument.

6.  The appeal was heard on 12 March 2026.  The Applicant attended the hearing in person with the assistance of an Urdu interpreter.  He added that the situation in Pakistan is the same as when he came to Hong Kong 24 years ago.

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 written submission are all bare allegations without particulars.  They do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision.

10.  The Applicant has failed to identify and 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. 

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