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

CACV 895/2025, [2026] HKCA 814

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 4550

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 895 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 873 OF 2020)

__________________________

BETWEEN

__________________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Lewis Law (“the Judge”) dated 8 October 2025, [1] 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 5 May 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”) whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 30 July 2018 (“the Director’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The applicant is a national of Pakistan. He lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Immigration Department on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by certain members of other political parties of Pakistan Muslim League (N) (“PML(N)”) and the national assembly (“MNA”). The applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director, and his appeal against it was rejected by the Board. 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 dated 8 October 2025 (“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.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

4.  By a notice of appeal filed on 17 October 2025, the applicant sought to appeal the Judge’s decision to this court. For the grounds of appeal, the applicant stated that (sic) “I want to apply judicial review against my Order because I am not satisfied with my Order and my life is still danger in my home country so I can not go back my country until the condition will not be normal.”

5.  The appeal was scheduled to be heard on 11 March 2026. The applicant has failed to lodge skeleton argument in support of his appeal in accordance with the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 15 January 2026. Accordingly, the applicant is deemed to have waived his right to have an oral hearing of the appeal, and elected to have the appeal disposed of on paper. The applicant was informed of the same by the court’s letter dated 12 February 2026.

6.  The applicant only lodged his skeleton submissions on 2 March 2026, which was out of time but we will consider it out of caution. In the submissions, he states that (sic) :-

“1. The Applicant, being the aggrieved party directly affected by the above decision, has sufficient interest in the subject matter of this application to satisfy the requirements under order 53, rule 3(7) of the Rules of the High Court, Cap.4A.

2. The Applicant believes that the Director of Immigration and the Adjudicator of Appeal Board reached the decision(s) wrongly in assessing his Non-refoulement claim. He believes the decisions were not reasonable and fair (as required by the Wednesbury test).

3. Indeed, the right to life is protected under Article 28 of the Basic Law and Article 2 of the Bill of Rights. In practice, the right of life is mainly protected by the criminal law and it must be protected from extra-judicial killings that Applicant may face if he is deported back to his country.

4. From the Director’s Decision(s), it is evident that the director has failed to appreciate or give the proper importance or weight age to the presence of state acquiescence in the Applicant case. This has indeed led to an unfair outcome of rejecting the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

[5.] The Adjudicator acted unreasonable and was procedurally unfair by placing too much reliance on country of Origin Information but failed to take the Applicant’s personal background and experience into account. Further, The Applicant submits that although the Director had listed relevant COIs which support the aversions that the police in his country would not be able to protect. The Director failed to consider or give enough weight age to that evidence and ruled otherwise.

[6]. The Applicant submits that the Director has failed to take such argument into account or that the Director has failed to give enough weight to such argument before reaching the Decisions. This was a clean case of unfair attitude shown by the Director which in itself is enough to render his Decisions void.

[7.] The Adjudicator made a ruling to dismiss the Applicants appeal/petition in the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office based on findings which the Adjudicator ought to allow the appeal/petition, and thus the Decisions were irrational.

[8.] The applicant decision issued by the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition office contains all the details of his claim.

[9.] The Applicant humbly ask this Honorable Court to grant leave to have the Decisions judicially reviewed.”

DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION

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 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.

9.  In the present case, the Judge found no error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board. It is incumbent on the applicant to point out the Judge's errors with sufficient particulars and specifics. In our view, the matters set out in the applicant’s notice of appeal and written submissions failed to identify any error on the part of the Judge. 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. We dismiss it accordingly.