MOHAMMED EKBAL KHAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 407/2025, [2026] HKCA 337

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 2457

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 407 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 3732 OF 2019)

__________________________

__________________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Philips Wong (“the Judge”) dated 10 June 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 13 December 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”).

The applicant’s claim and the Judge’s decision

2.  The applicant is a national of India. His non-refoulement claims were put on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by All India Trinamool Congress supporters. The applicant’s non-refoulement claims were rejected by the Director on 27 May 2016 and 4 July 2017, and his appeal against the Director’s decisions was rejected by the Board. 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 and details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can be found in the Form CALL-1.

The appeal

4.  By a notice of appeal filed on 16 June 2025, the applicant sought to appeal the Judge’s decision to this court. For the grounds of appeal, the applicant stated that “Respected high court I want to apply Judicial Review against my ORDER which I get from high court because I am not satisfied with order. Respected sir I am living here in hong kong with my wife and kidd and really my life have still danger in my home country India. That’s why I can not go back my country right now so please give me at least more 3 years so can I sattaled everything in my home country INDIA”.

5.  In the applicant’s written submission lodged on 20 January 2026, he reiterated his claim that his life would be at risk if refouled and that he would be tortured or killed by his enemies. He asserted that the Judge erred in law and that the decision was unreasonable and unfair.

6.  The appeal was heard on 24 February 2026. The applicant attended the hearing in person with the assistance of a Hindi interpreter. He added that he was married to a Hong Kong resident in 2025. He also needed time to receive medical treatment in Hong Kong.

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.  In the present case, no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board was detected by the Judge or was pointed out by the applicant apart from the bare assertions as stated in his grounds of appeal and in his written submission.

10.  It is incumbent on the applicant to point out the Judge's errors with sufficient particulars. In our view, the matters set out in the applicant’s notice of appeal and written submission failed to identify any error on the part of the Judge. They do not constitute any viable grounds of appeal and lack substance. We see no basis to interfere with the Judge’s decision.

11.  For the above reasons, the applicant’s appeal is devoid of merits. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.