UMER FAROOQ v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 931/2025, [2026] HKCA 56

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 4450

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 931 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1050 OF 2025)

________________________

_____________________

_____________________

J U D G M E N T

_____________________

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

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung dated 13 October 2025 (“the Order”) refusing the Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 24 April 2025 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 28 January 2025 refusing his non-refoulement claim.

2.  The Applicant’s background, the basis of his claim and his arguments advanced before the Board as well as the Board’s reasons for rejecting his appeal have been set out in the Board’s Decision and summarised in paragraphs 4 to 10 of the CALL-1 Form dated 13 October 2025 ([2025] HKCFI 4450) (“the Leave Decision”). In short, the Applicant, a Pakistani national, was arrested on 6 October 2024 for illegally remaining in Hong Kong. He claimed to have departed Pakistan for the Mainland and then entered Hong Kong via the Mainland illegally. The basis of his claim was that if he returned to Pakistan, he would be harmed or killed by his paternal uncle and cousins due to a land dispute and his political views. The Board held that the Applicant’s evidence was vague, inconsistent, unpersuasive, obfuscated, and incredible. He changed his evidence when considered convenient. The Board found that the Applicant’s claims were fabricated in their entirety.

3.  The Applicant’s intended grounds of judicial review and the Judge’s reasons for his decision are set out in paragraphs 11 to 18 of the Leave Decision. We will not repeat them here.

4.  In the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal filed on 27 October 2025 in support of his appeal, the Applicant stated the following:

“I am disagree with the decision maker authorities. This decision same like Torture Claims Appeal Board and Director of Immigration. They will not give me justice, why Judiciary system have same error. Sir our country police not help us then we come in Hong Kong for safety of our life. I do not think my claim determined fairly.” [sic]

5.  The Applicant lodged his written submissions on 22 December 2025. In those submissions, the Applicant made various general complaints against the Director and the Adjudicator. None of the complaints was directed at the decision of the Judge.

6.  At the hearing of the appeal on 15 January 2026, the Applicant stated that he had a “few things” in his phone which could show that his enemies were still chasing after him.

7.  The relevant legal principles governing appeals against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in non-refoulement cases are well settled. In particular, 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)].

8.  In light of the above, it is incumbent on the Applicant in this appeal to point out errors or possible errors in the Leave Decision with sufficient particulars and specifics. He has failed to do so. His allegations and complaints are directed at the Director/the Adjudicator. They cannot constitute valid grounds of appeal against the Order. On this ground alone, the Applicant’s appeal must be dismissed.

9.  In any event, the Applicant’s assertions are all general, bare and vague allegations unsupported by particulars or evidence. General and bare assertions of his fear of harm or ill treatment upon refoulement do not constitute valid grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].

10.  For the above reasons, the Applicant’s appeal is without merit, and is dismissed.