KHAN KHURRAM SHAHZAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 573/2025, [2026] HKCA 353

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 3201

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 573 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 866 OF 2020)

________________________

BETWEEN

_____________________

_____________________

JUDGMENT

_____________________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Lewis Law (“the Judge”) dated 28 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 16 April 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The applicant is a national of Pakistan. On 10 August 2016, the applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by several figures associated with the opposing Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz).[1] The applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 18 September 2017, and his appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 16 April 2020. 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 28 July 2025.[2]

3.  The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 28 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 his Notice of Appeal filed on 1 August 2025, the applicant states the following that:

“I would like to reject and review the Decision made By the Court and TCAB They Disregard Our Dangerous Situation.” (sic)

5.  In the skeleton arguments lodged on 7 January 2026, the applicant essentially argues that:

(1) The Director and the Board wrongly assessed the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

(2) The applicant’s right to life is protected under the Basic Law and the Bill of Rights.

(3) The authorities were on the basis of quick disposal of non-refoulement cases.

(4) The Director failed to give sufficient weight to state acquiescence, or failed to take such argument into account.

(5) The Board placed too much reliance on country of origin information and failed to take into account the applicant’s personal background and experience.

(6) The Director failed to give enough weightage to country of origin information that the police in the applicant’s country would not be able to protect before reaching his decision.

(7) The Board dismissed the applicant’s appeal based on the findings which the Board ought to allow the appeal.

6.  At the hearing, the applicant informed the Court that he is married with another non-refoulement claimant with a 2 years old daughter. Her non-refoulement claim is on-going.

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 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 skeleton arguments are all general allegations without particulars. What he said at the hearing added nothing to his appeal. 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.