AFZAL SAID v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 858/2025, [2026] HKCA 580

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 4390

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 858 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1807 OF 2020)

__________________________

__________________________

________________

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 25 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 21 August 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”) whereby the Board dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 29 March 2018 (“the Director’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The applicant is a national of Pakistan. He lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Immigration Department on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by a person and his family members who are connected with the ruling party and with whom he had a monetary dispute. The applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director, and his appeal 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 dated 25 September 2025.  

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

4.  By a notice of appeal filed on 9 October 2025, the applicant sought to appeal the Judge’s decision to this court. For the grounds of appeal, the applicant stated that:

“I am disagree with the decision maker authorities. They were totally relied on some web news which officially not recognized by authorities. There are not proper investigation in my claim so I do not think my case determined fairly.”

5.  In the applicant’s skeleton argument lodged on 26 February 2026, he disputed the decisions of the Director and the Board, without substantiating any argument against the Judge’s decision.

6.  The appeal was heard on 25 March 2026. The applicant attended the hearing in person with the assistance of a Pashto interpreter and added that his cousins were killed by his enemies in 2025.

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, which were not substantiated with any specific information or elaboration.

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. We dismiss it accordingly.