SOHAIL AKBAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 829/2025, [2026] HKCA 425

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 4457

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 829 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2354 OF 2020)

________________________

_____________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of DHCJ (Non-refoulement Claims) Philips Wong (“the Judge”) dated 23 September 2025 (“the Order”) 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 9 October 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The Applicant is a national of Pakistan. The Applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by an influential member of the Pakistan Peoples Party and his fellow members because the Applicant witnessed the murder committed by that member.  The Applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 25 January 2019, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 9 October 2020.  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.    

3.  The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 23 September 2025.  Details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can be found in the CALL-1 Form. 

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

4.  In the Notice of Appeal filed on 3 October 2025, the Applicant states the following:

“I am disagree with the decision maker authorities. They were Relied on some web news which officially not Recognized by authorities. MY basic claim was it’s a Political matter and government official behind this. I can’t go back to my country in this situation and I can’t Put my life in Risk. I was married in Hong Kong and I have twins sons as well and I am waiting for my Independent visa as well.” (sic) 

5.  In the skeleton argument filed on 28 January 2026, the Applicant essentially disputes the Director and the Board’s decisions, without advancing any substantive argument against the Judge’s decision.

6.  The appeal was heard on 12 March 2026.  The Applicant attended the hearing in person with the assistance of an Urdu interpreter.  He added that he married a permanent Hong Kong resident in 2014. They have a twins who are 11 years old and suffer from autism.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

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 below will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there are errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022.  

DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION

9.  It is evident from the notice of appeal that the reasons for the appeal for the Applicant is that his life would be at risk and his wishes to remain in Hong Kong with his family.  However, the Applicant’s marriage to a Hong Kong resident is not a relevant consideration in assessing his non-refoulement claim.  That is a matter for the Director.

10.  The matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal and skeleton argument are all bare allegations without particulars.  They do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision.

11.  The Applicant has failed to identify and substantiate any error in the Judge’s decision refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review, or raise any viable ground of appeal against the Order. 

12.  The Applicant’s appeal has no merit, and is dismissed.