RAJA SHAHID v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 675/2025, [2026] HKCA 916

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 2946

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 675 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 3199 OF 2019)

__________________________

BETWEEN

__________________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

Hon Ng J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung (“the Judge”) dated 26 August 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 18 October 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”) whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 26 September 2017 (“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 his former employer, Sabir, and his men because he refused Sabir’s instruction to kill someone. The applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director, and his appeal against it 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.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

4.  By a notice of appeal filed on 2 September 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. I can’t go back to Pakistan because Right now Pakistan is suffering with the Flood and in my area as well full of water I can’t contact to my Family as well I am just worried about them because Lot of peoples are lost in Flood. I try to contact them but no any update our home as well destroy with the Flood water.”

5.  The appeal was scheduled to be heard on 16 April 2026. The applicant has failed to lodge any skeleton argument in support of his appeal in accordance with the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals. Accordingly, the applicant is deemed to have waived his right to have an oral hearing of the appeal, and elected to have the appeal disposed of on paper.

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 or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022.

DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION

8.  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 in his notice of appeal, which failed to state any grounds to challenge the Judge’s decision. There is simply no viable ground of appeal. We see no basis to interfere with the Judge’s decision.

9.  For the above reasons, the applicant’s appeal is devoid of merits. We dismiss it accordingly.