RE MEHMOOD KHALID

CACV 13/2026, [2026] HKCA 378

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 6028

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 13 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 459 OF 2021)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Jeffrey Chau dated 24 December 2025 ([2025] HKCFI 6028)  (‘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 19 March 2021 (‘the Board’s Decision’), whereby the Board dismissed his appeal/petition against the decision of the Director of Immigration (‘the Director’)  dated 11 May 2018, refusing his non-refoulement claim except for torture[1].

2.  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]-[5], [10] of the Leave Decision[2].

3.  The applicant is a national of Pakistan[3].  The applicant claimed that on 28 January 2012, he departed Pakistan for the Mainland.  After a few months, he entered Hong Kong illegally by foot on 25 April 2012.  On 27 April 2012, he was arrested by the police.  On 8 May 2012, he lodged a torture claim, and it was rejected on 29 January 2014.  On 17 February 2014, the applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim on all applicable grounds except for torture[4].  The basis of his claim is that if he returned to Pakistan, he will be harmed or killed by some secret gangs because he was a member of a local charity organization that was set up by the applicant and some of the applicant’s fellow villagers in his village, and the applicant opposed to accept some people into the charity organization[5].

4.  The Judge sets out his reasons for refusing the Leave Application: see [9]-[11] of the Leave Decision.  We will not repeat the details herein.

5.  By the Notice of Appeal filed on 6 January 2026, the applicant stated the following :

‘ I am disagree with the decision maker authorities. They make decision totally unfair. Sir decision maker make decision same like Torture Claims Appeal Board and Director of Immigration. They were not proper investigate my claim. Decision maker not give justice. Sir our country police also not help us if I go back my home country then my life no more. Please recheck my case and allow to me stay in Hong Kong. For safety of my life. Thanks.’

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

1)  The Director and the Adjudicator made their decisions wrongly.  The decisions were Wednesbury unreasonable ([1]);

2)  The applicant has sufficient interest to apply for judicial review ([2]);

3)  The applicant’s right to life under the Basic Law and Bill of Rights must be protected ([3]);

4)  Acts of authorities against non-refoulement claimants based on quick disposal is unacceptable ([4]);

5)  The Director failed to give weight to state acquiescence in the applicant’s case, and the Director did not take such argument into account before making his decision ([5]-[7]);

6)  The Adjudicator place too much reliance on country of origin information ([8]);

7)  The Adjudicator made a ruling which was irrational ([9]); and

8)  The applicant asks the Court to grant leave ([10]).

7.  None of these bare assertions in the applicant’s written submission relate to any complaint against the Judge.

8.  In Court, the applicant said that his wife is a Hong Kong resident.  He is applying for a dependant visa.  His daughter is now in hospital and the doctor said that she is likely to stay there for six months. 

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 nor written submission 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.