AHMED TABRAIZ v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 167/2026, [2026] HKCA 825

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 1017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 167 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 273 OF 2021)

________________________

________________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

Hon Lisa Wong J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

Introduction

1.  This is an appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge To (“Judge”) on 13 February 2026 refusing to grant the applicant, a national of Pakistan, leave to apply for judicial review (“Judge’s Decision”). The intended judicial review sought to quash the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / adjudicator of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dated 23 February 2021 (“Board’s Decision”), which upheld the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 15 October 2018 rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

2.  The applicant’s claim was made on the basis of a fear of being harmed or killed by his uncle and cousins due to a land dispute. Details of the applicant’s background, the circumstances giving rise to his said alleged fear, the arguments advanced by him before the Board and the Board’s reasons for rejecting his appeal are all set out in the Board’s Decision[1]. For the grounds advanced by the applicant in support of his application for leave to apply for judicial review and the Judge’s reasons for refusal, see [10] – [15] of the Form CALL-1.

Appeal to this Court

3.  By the notice of appeal filed herein on 25 February 2026, the applicant appealed against the Judge’s Decision, essentially on the ground that there were many unparticularised errors in the Board’s Decision.

4.  The applicant’s written submission dated 30 March 2026 contended (1) that the Judge erred in not finding the decisions of the Director and the Board to be irrational and unreasonable; (2) that the Director and the Board failed to give reasons to justify their respective decisions; (3) that the Judge did not analyse his claim properly; (4) that the Board failed to allow him an opportunity to provide further evidence; (5) that the Board relied on sources of news that were not officially recognised; and (6) that the Board’s finding of existence of state protection in Pakistan was irrational.

5.  At the hearing, the applicant added that he has got married in Hong Kong and is waiting for the result of his application for a dependant visa.

Legal principles

6.  First, the primary decision-makers in a non-refoulement claim are the Director and the Board. They alone assess the evidence and find relevant facts. An application for leave for judicial review does not provide a further avenue of appeal. The court will not re-assess the non-refoulement claim. It will intervene by way of judicial review only for errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality.

7.  Second, an appeal against a refusal of leave to apply for judicial review is not the occasion for the Court of Appeal to examine the decision of the Board afresh as if the appeal were a fresh application for leave for judicial review. This court is concerned with the decision of the judge at first instance, which it will consider in light of the grounds of appeal raised by the applicant. The Court of Appeal shall interfere only if the judge had erred in law, failed to take into account a relevant matter or was otherwise plainly wrong. If no such error is shown, the appeal should be dismissed.

8.  In support, 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].

Discussion

9.  In the present case, the Board found no real risk of harm to the applicant upon refoulement because he did not establish any of the facts he asserted in support of his non-refoulement claim. Though there were stark inconsistencies between the initial statement of his claim and the information given by him at the screening interview with the Director, the applicant refused to answer the questions raised by the Board to clarify his case. Even on the assumption that the facts were as claimed by the applicant, the Board still found that there was no real risk of harm upon refoulement because the applicant can reasonably be expected to leave the property that is the subject-matter of the dispute with his uncle and cousins within the joint family system. These are findings of fact open to the Board on the evidence it received and for the reasons it gave. The applicant has failed to show any or any reasonably arguable public law error in relation to the Board’s Decision.

10.  Equally, the applicant has not demonstrated any error in the Judge’s Decision. We are not satisfied that there is any error in the Judge’s Decision.

11.  The applicant’s appeal is accordingly dismissed.