ALI SHAFAIT v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 412/2025, [2026] HKCA 167

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 2397

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 412 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 254 OF 2020)

__________________________

__________________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

The Court:

Introduction

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Levy (“the Judge”) dated 13 June 2025,[1] refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petitions Office (the “Board”) dated 21 January 2020 (the “Board’s Decision”) whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (the “Director”) dated 23 April 2018 (the “Director’s Decision”).

The applicant’s claim and the Judge’s decision

2.  The applicant is a national of Pakistan. In his non-refoulement claim form filed with the Immigration Department dated 23 April 2018, he claimed that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by members of the Pakistan Muslim League (N) (“PML(N)”) because he quit the PML(N) and instead joined the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (“PTI”). The applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director, and his appeal against it was rejected by the Board on 21 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, the hyperlink to which can be found in the Form CALL-1. 

3.  The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge and details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can be found in the Form CALL-1.

The appeal

4.  By a notice of appeal filed on 17 June 2025, the applicant sought to appeal the Judge’s decision to this court. In the grounds of appeal, the applicant stated that “I am disagree with the decision maker authorities.  The decision made by the Director of Immigration, as well as Decision make by the Adjudicator of the Torture Claims Appeal Board. I do not think about my claim determined fairly.” (sic) He did not provide further particulars or elaboration.

5.  In the applicant’s skeleton submissions lodged on 18 December 2025, he stated that (sic):

“My name is Ali Shafait, from Pakistan enter in Hong Kong illegally on 27 January 2016. I surrender to Immigration Department and released the same day, pending my claims. I submitted my non-refoulment claims petition. I did not go back to my country because my life in danger if I go back home. I will be harmed and killed because to support the rulling parties name Pakistan Muslim League called (NAWAZ) during the campaign, I put up posters and attended the demonstrations and rallies canvas for votes. After sometime, I began to feel dissatisfied with the (NAWAZ) and switch my allegiance to the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI).

I joined the PTI as a member in June 2014 and became active, since that time my former parties feel or doubt that I am betraying them and I was assaulted some of the members since that time, I started receiving death threats and no one help me, even the police. So I feel so scared and I feel everywhere in Pakistan, I am not safe anymore.  To protect my life, I run/came here in Hong Kong to save my life and base on my experience in Pakistan the police and the government officials can’t protect and help me.  I’m already old and been widowed for long time and during that time I feel alone in life.  But when I meet my live in partner from Philippines and we have a daughter now.  I feel happy and glad even in a difficult situation.  And I don’t know how long, I will be in this world. So please give me a chance to be with my daughter and my wife here in Hong Kong.  Please reconsider my application.  Thank you.”

6.  At the hearing on 30 January 2026, the applicant said that he is married with a young daughter. He and his wife have to take care of her. He reiterated that his life would be in danger if he were to be returned to Pakistan.

Our reasons for decision

7.  The Court of Appeal’s general approach in dealing with appeals in non-refoulement cases is set out in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, at §14. In particular, 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 is a fresh application for judicial review (see Nupur Mst, at §14(6)).

8.  Further, 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 is an error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022. In the present case, the Judge found no such error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board.

9.  In this appeal, it is incumbent on the applicant to identify the Judge's errors with sufficient particulars and specifics. However, the matters set out in the notice of appeal and his written submissions failed to do so. They do not constitute any viable grounds of appeal and lack substance. We see no basis to interfere with the Judge’s decision.

10.  For the above reasons, the applicant’s appeal is devoid of merits. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.