HAYAT KHIZAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 863/2025, [2026] HKCA 1498

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 4507

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 863 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2403 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 29 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 2 December 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”).  

BACKGROUND

2.  The Applicant is a national of Pakistan.  The Applicant previously lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by members of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) (“PML-N”) because he is a member of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf and refused to leave and join the PML-N. The Applicant’s claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 30 May 2018, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 2 December 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 29 September 2025.

3.  The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 29 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 10 October 2025, the Applicant states the following that:

“I am disagree with the decision maker authorities. The decision made by the Director of Immigration, AS well as the decision by the Adjudicator of TorTure claim APPeal Board. There is no ProPer investigation in my claim. So I do not think my case determined fairly.” (sic)

5.  In his skeleton argument filed on 10 July 2026, the Applicant essentially argues that:

(1)  The Director and the Board wrongly assessed the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim and were not reasonable and fair.

(2)  The Applicant’s right to life is protected under the Basic Law and the Bill of Rights.

(3)  The Director failed to give sufficient weight to the presence of state acquiescence.

(4)  The Board placed too much reliance on country of origin information and failed to take into account the Applicant’s personal background and experience.

(5)  The Director failed to give enough weight to the parts of country of origin information which support the aversions that the police in the Applicant’s country would not be able to protect him.

(6)  The Board’s decision to refuse the Applicant’s appeal was unreasonable or irrational, or as a result of procedural errors or unfairness.

(7)  The Board relied on some web news which was not officially recognised by the authorities, and failed to conduct proper investigation into the Applicant’s claims.

6.  The appeal was scheduled on 18 August 2026.  The Applicant failed to attend the hearing.  His application was thus dismissed with reasons to be handed down, which we are now do.

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 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.  

DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION

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

10.  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. 

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