RE AMEEN KHAWAJA

CACV 137/2026, [2026] HKCA 643

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 626

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 137 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 370 OF 2021)

__________________

__________________

__________________

JUDGMENT

__________________

Hon Cheung JA (giving the Judgment of the Court) :

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Michael Wong dated 4 February 2026 ([2025] HKCFI 4689) (‘the Leave Decision’) refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review (‘the Leave Application’) against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (‘the Board’) dated 26 February 2021 (‘the Board’s 2021 Decision’), whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (‘the Director’) dated 11 June 2018, refusing his non-refoulement claim in relation to specifically his right to life claim under BOR 2.

2.  The applicant claimed that he entered Hong Kong illegally in April 2006. After arrival and shortly after he made a refugee application to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, he surrendered to the Immigration Department in July 2007 for being an illegal immigrant. The applicant had previously, in April 2010, raised his non-refoulement claim with the Director which was assessed regarding his risk of torture, persecution, and BOR 3. By the Director’s Notice of Decision dated 21 August 2014, the claim was refused. The applicant raised an appeal/petition out of time with the Torture Claims Appeal Board. The Board on 13 October 2014 (‘the Board’s 2014 Decision’) refused to grant extension of time to the applicant for his late filing of appeal.

3.  The applicant’s background, the basis of his claim and arguments advanced before the Board as well as the Board’s reasons for rejecting his appeal are all set out in the Board’s Decision: see [1]-[9], [15], [18]-[24] of the Leave Decision[1].

4.  The basis of his claim is that if he returned to Pakistan, he would be harmed or killed by the Muslim League Party or the Jamate Islamia Party because the applicant/petitioner had participated in the activities of the Pakistani People’s Party[2].

5.  The Judge also sets out the grounds advanced by the applicant in support of the Leave Application and his reasons for refusing the Leave Application: see [10]-[26] of the Leave Decision. We will not repeat the details herein.

6.  By the Notice of Appeal filed on 20 February 2026, the applicant stated the following :

‘ I do not agree with the decision of the Court of First Instance. The learned Judge did not consider my application for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board.’

7.  In his written submissions, the applicant stated the following in summary :

1) The Judge’s decision was unreasonable;

2) The Judge was wrong for not applying principle of irrationality or procedural unfairness[3];

3) The decision has a significant effect on applicant’s torture claim;

4) The Judge did not review the matter with high standard of fairness, the Judge did not analyse the case properly, and failed to give the applicant sufficient chance to arrange evidence[4];

5) The applicant will face hardship if refouled, and the Board relied on hearsay evidence;

6) The Board failed to find a pattern of gross and mass violation of human rights in the applicant’s home country;

7) The Board failed to make correct finding on state protection and extended state protection;

8) The applicant’s enemy is still looking for him[5];

9) The applicant’s enemy is very dangerous;

10) The applicant has no faith in the local police and did not seek help from them; and

11) There is high risk that the applicant will be tortured if refouled, and so he is fearful of that[6].

8.  In Court, the applicant said that he had suffered body burn and will have surgery that afternoon.

I. Discussion

9.  The relevant legal principles governing appeals in non-refoulement cases are set out in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14].

10.  In particular, in an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in non-refoulement cases, 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. The Court’s role is not to examine the decision maker’s decision afresh as if it were a fresh application for judicial review. See Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14(6)].

11.  In light of the above, it is thus incumbent on the applicant to point out the errors in the Leave Decision with sufficient particulars and specifics.

12.  However, nowhere in his Notice of Appeal or submissions did the applicant identify any error committed by the Judge with specific particulars. His assertions are all general, bare and vague allegations unsupported by specific particulars or evidence. General assertions of his fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6]. The Court will not usurp the role of the Board. Assessment of evidence, country of origin information materials, 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. No such error was demonstrated by the applicant. Clearly, his assertions do not constitute viable grounds of appeal and lack substance. His oral submissions do not carry the case further. We see no basis to interfere with the Leave Decision.

13.  For the above reasons, the applicant’s appeal against the Leave Decision has no merit and is dismissed.