USMAN MUHAMMAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 562/2025, [2026] HKCA 114

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 2961

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 562 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 320 OF 2020)

________________________

BETWEEN

_____________________

_____________________

JUDGMENT

_____________________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of DHCJ Michael Wong (“the Judge”) dated 22 July 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 27 December 2018 (“the Board’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The Applicant is a national of Pakistan. On 17 October 2013 and 27 March 2014, the Applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by members of Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) due to his support for the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf. The Applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 29 November 2016, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 27 December 2018. 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 22 July 2025.

3.  The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 22 July 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 30 July 2025, the Applicant states the following:

“…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 They have also relied on some cases which are outdated considering the dramatic changes.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 3-page written submissions filed on 22 December 2025, the Applicant recited a number of legal authorities and made some bare assertions about his fear of return and on the general principles of law relating to non-refoulement claims.

6.  The Appeal was heard on 28 January 2026. At the hearing, the Applicant told this court that he had a family here ie a wife and a daughter who hold Hong Kong ID cards. Further, he had already applied to the Immigration Department for a Hong Kong ID card the result of which was still pending. In our view, his application is a matter for the Immigration Department and does not constitute a valid ground of appeal.

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 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 written submissions are all general and bare allegations. 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.