MUZAFFAR BILAL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 735/2025, [2026] HKCA 741

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 3940

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 735 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 3364 OF 2019)

________________________

_____________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of DHCJ Michael Wong (“the Judge”) dated 2 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 5 November 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The Applicant is a national of Pakistan. On 16 June 2016, the Applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by members of the Pakistan Muslim League (N) due to his involvement in the Pakistan People’s Party. The Applicant’s claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 19 October 2018, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 5 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 on 2 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 his Notice of Appeal filed on 12 September 2025, the Applicant states the following:

“1. It is evident from the Director’s Decision that the director failed to appreciate or give the proper importance or weightage to the presence of state acquiescence in the applicant’s case. This resulted in an unfair outcome, where the applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected.

2. The applicant submits that both the Director, the Adjudicator, and the Court failed to consider this argument or that the Director did not give sufficient weight to it before reaching the Decision.

3. The Adjudicator failed to conduct adequate inquiries before finalizing the determination. The Adjudicator stated that the applicant had failed to provide any credible evidence to prove the material elements of the applicant’s claim.

4. Surprisingly, in the applicant’s Decision, the Director included meanings from relevant COI’s that suited the applicant’s pre-conceived conclusion. This demonstrates a clear case of unfair attitude shown by the Director, which in itself is sufficient to render the applicant’s Decision void.

5. The grounds of this appeal are that the gravity of the applicant’s circumstances has not been properly weighed or recognized by both the putative Respondents when considering the applicant’s non-refoulement claim. The Applicant request an opportunity to present the applicant’s case adequately.”

5.  The Applicant has failed to lodge written submissions in support of the appeal in accordance with the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals. Accordingly, the Applicant is deemed to have waived the right to have an oral hearing of the appeal and elected to have the appeal disposed of on paper. Having considered the documents before us, we consider that it is appropriate to deal with the Applicant’s appeal on paper without an oral hearing.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

6.  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)).

7.  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

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

9.  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.

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