WAQAS MUHAMMAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 341/2025, [2026] HKCA 446

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 1973

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 341 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 284 OF 2020)

________________________

BETWEEN

_____________________

_____________________

JUDGMENT

_____________________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Levy (“the Judge”) dated 20 May 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 24 February 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The applicant is a national of Pakistan. On 21 July 2019, the applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by his paternal uncle and his uncle’s associates who threatened to kill him unless he transferred his land to his uncle.[1] The applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 24 September 2019, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 24 February 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, the hyperlink to which can be found in the CALL-1 Form dated 20 May 2025.[2]

3.  The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 20 May 2025. Details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can be found in the judgment.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

4.  In his Notice of Appeal filed on 27 May 2025, the applicant states the following that:

“I should be happy to provide the court with new written submission and any further information regard to my Notice of Appeal.” (sic)

5.  In the 5-page written submissions lodged on 20 January 2026, apart from making generic submissions on the general principles of law relating to non-refoulement claims and subsequent claims, the applicant also argues that:

(1) Due to new and compelling circumstances since the decision on his previous claim, he would face imminent danger if refouled, and he wants to tell his story to the Immigration Department with the language and legal assistance.

(2) He applies for “an order preserving [his] anonymity in the Notice of Appeal proceedings in the High Court”.

(3) The “cherry-picking and biased and formula approach” by the Director and the Board in reaching their decisions is “highly unfair and prejudice”.

(4) The Board’s assessment of his credibility was procedurally unfair and/or irrational.

(5) The Board’s decision did not meet the high standard of fairness or was unlawful.

(6) The Board excluded or failed to give weight to certain evidence because it regarded such evidence as hearsay or speculation.

(7) The COI submitted before the Board shows that capital punishment is still implemented in Pakistan.

6.  At the hearing on 25 February 2026, the applicant said that his father was attacked recently. His two sisters came to Hong Kong recently on student visa. His brother was sent to Iran.

DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION

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 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: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022.

9.  We refuse to make the order sought in the written submissions for anonymity as there are no grounds that put before us for such an application.

10.  The matters raised in the applicant’s Notice of Appeal and written submissions are all general allegations without particulars. What he said in oral submissions did not add anything to his appeal. They do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision.

11.  The applicant has failed to identify or show 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.