RE ABID HUSNAIN

CACV 1197/2025, [2026] HKCA 138

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 6206

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 1197 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 957 OF 2024)

_______________

_______________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Hon Leung J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge To (“the Judge”) dated 12 December 2025 ([2025] HKCFI 6206) (“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 13 June 2024 (“the Board’s Decision”). By the Board’s Decision, his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 5 March 2024, which refused his non-refoulement claim, was dismissed.

2.  The applicant is a Pakistani national. His personal background, the basis of his claim and his arguments advanced before the Board as well as the Board’s reasons for rejecting his appeal were set out in the Board’s Decision: see [1] – [10] of the Leave Decision[1]. The Judge also set out his reasons for refusing the Leave Application: see [11] - [13] of the Leave Decision. We will not repeat the details herein.

3.  By the Notice of Appeal filed on 16 December 2025, the applicant stated:

“I am disagree with the decision maker authorities. Sir decision maker not do proper investigation my claim, they not give me justice, they were totally relied on same web news which officially not recognised by authorities. My life have still threating in my Home Country. Their no body help us. Please grant my case – Sir I do not think my case refused, so fast.” (sic)

4.  The appeal was listed to be heard on 2 February 2026. By the directions made by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 16 December 2025, which were received by the applicant on the same day, he was directed to lodge two sets of skeleton argument on or before 19 January 2026, failing which, he would be deemed to have waived his right to have an oral hearing for the appeal and the hearing date would be vacated with the appeal being determined on paper.

5.  The applicant did not lodge any skeleton argument in support of his appeal[2]. Accordingly, he was deemed to have waived his right to have an oral hearing and elected to have his appeal disposed of on paper. The hearing date was thus vacated on 20 January 2026.

6.  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]. 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.

7.  Apart from expressing his disagreement, the applicant did not actually identify and particularise any error committed by the Judge which could give rise to any ground of appeal. His assertion of fear if refouled is bare and general, which do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6]. In the absence of viable grounds, the appeal must fail.

8.  Insofar as his complaints about the investigation and assessment of the country of origin information are concerned, as the Judge explained at [12] of the Leave Decision, such assessment and factual findings are primarily within the Board’s realm, and the Court will not interfere save where there are public law errors: see Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022 at [13]. In our judgment, the Judge was entitled to find the Board’s Decision in those respects to be without fault. We see no basis to interfere with the Leave Decision.

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