SUFYAN MAZHAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CACV 953/2025, [2026] HKCA [2026] HKCA 193

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 5031

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 953 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1728 OF 2020)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon G Lam JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

Introduction

1.  This is an appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“Judge”)  on 23 October 2025 refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/adjudicator of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”)  dated 28 July 2020.  In that decision, the Board upheld the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”)  dated 25 March 2020 rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

Background

2.  The applicant is a national of Pakistan born in 1995 and his claim was made on the basis that if he returned to Pakistan, his family and friends would harm or kill him due to his religious conversion from Sunni to Shia faith. Details of the applicant’s background, the basis of his claim and the arguments advanced before the Board as well as the Board’s reasons for rejecting his appeal have all been set out in the Board’s decision: see [9] of the Form CALL-1.  The Judge has set out the grounds advanced by the applicant in support of the application for leave to apply for judicial review and his reasons for refusing leave: see [11] – [14] of the Form CALL-1.  We shall not repeat them here.

Appeal to this Court

3.  On 31 October 2025, the applicant filed his Notice of Appeal against the Judge’s decision.  His stated ground of appeal was, essentially, that the Judge’s decision was unfair without providing any particulars.

4.  The applicant has lodged written submissions in which he stated that his case was not determined fairly, that there should be a proper and fair mechanism to allow unrepresented litigants to understand more about their claim, and that the lack of legal and language assistance amounted to procedural unfairness.  He further stated that the Board acted in breach of procedural fairness but did not provide any particulars relating to his own case.

5.  As the applicant did not appear at the scheduled hearing, we shall accordingly determine the appeal on the basis of the available documents and materials.

Discussion

6.  In assessing the merits of the appeal, we shall have regard to the legal principles which this Court has adopted in dealing with appeals in non-refoulement cases: see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14]; Re Md Shohel Sheak [2018] HKCA 714 at [13]; and Re Limbu Birkhaman [2019] HKCA 50 at [11].  In particular, the role of the Court in a judicial review is not to provide a further avenue of appeal.  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.  In the determination of an appeal against the refusal of leave by the Court of First Instance, the Court of Appeal will 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.  It is not the role of this Court to examine the decision of the Board afresh as if the appeal were a fresh application for judicial review.

7.  In the present case, the Board found that there was no real risk of harm upon refoulement as alleged, because the Board doubted the credibility of the applicant’s claim. Even taken at its highest, the Board found the applicant’s claim to be a private religious dispute without any state involvement, where reasonable state protection would be available to the applicant and internal relocation to urban centres with large Shia communities within Pakistan would be viable.  These are findings of fact open to the Board based on the evidence it received and for the reasons it gave. The applicant has failed to show any reasonably arguable public law error in relation to the Board’s decision.

8.  As to the complaint about the lack of legal and language assistance, it has been repeatedly stated by the Court of Appeal that as a matter of law, it is not the case that a non-refoulement claimant is entitled to free legal representation at all stages of the process and that the high standard of fairness required by law does not entail interpretation service being made available to an applicant all the time as he desires: Re Zunariyah [2018] HKCA 14 at [18]; Re Zahid Abbas [2018] HKCA 15 at [11] and Re Tariq Farhan [2018] HKCA 17 at [11].  We note that all the court documents filed in this appeal and in the court below were in English.  It is thus clear that either the applicant was himself conversant with the English language or he had access to language assistance of his own if he found it necessary.  Further, we note that the applicant was legally represented in the initial preparation of his case by the completion of the non-refoulement claim form and screening interview with the Director, which formed the basis of his present claim. Thus, we do not find the non-availability of legal representation in the processes before the court to amount to any procedural unfairness.

9.  Equally, the applicant has not been able to demonstrate any error in the decision of the Judge or advance any viable ground of appeal against the Judge’s decision.  We are not satisfied that there is any error in the Judge’s decision.

10.  The applicant’s appeal is accordingly dismissed.