ALI BADASHA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 325/2025, [2026] HKCA 334

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 1699

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 325 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 3815 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) Martin Wong (“the Judge”) dated 13 May 2025[1](“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 20 November 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The applicant is a national of India. He lodged his non-refoulement claim with the Immigration Department on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by people of opposing political affiliation. The applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director on 3 December 2018, and his appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 20 November 2019. 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. Details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can be found in the Form CALL-1.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

4.  By a notice of appeal filed on 23 May 2025, the applicant sought to appeal the Judge’s decision to this court. For the grounds of appeal, the applicant stated that “the grounds of this appeal are that the Applicant will face hardship if he is to return back to his home country and that the Torture Claims Appeal Board has significantly relied on the source of news which is not officially recognized, or it is simply hearsay. They have also relied on some cases which are outdated considering the dramatic changes. The lack of credible source of information has resulted in them making groundless speculations.”

5.  In the applicant’s skeleton argument lodged on 20 January 2026, he reiterated his claim and that his life would be at risk if refouled as he would be killed by his enemies. He asserted that the Judge erred in law, and that his 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 an interpreter and added that he has some medical issues.

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 skeleton argument.

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 skeleton argument 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.