ALI ASGAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 425/2026, [2026] HKCA 1101

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 2118

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 425 OF 2026

ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 3229 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge To (“the Judge”)  dated 17 April 2026 ([2026] HKCFI 2118)  (“the Leave Decision”)  dismissing his application for leave to apply for judicial review (“the Leave Application”)  against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”)  dated 18 October 2018 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 26 January 2017, refusing his non-refoulement claim. The Judge also refused to grant the applicant an extension of time for making the Leave Application.

2.  The applicant is a national of India.  The basis of his non-refoulement claim is that, if refouled, he would be harmed by some Hindu men as he and his Muslim friends had a fight with them arising from one of the Hindu men “making a pass at his friend’s girlfriend”, and also by the police.  His background, the basis of his claim and arguments advanced before the Board as well as the Board’s reasons for rejecting his appeal were set out in the Board’s Decision: see [4] of the Leave Decision.  The Board was satisfied that the applicant’s claims were completely lacking in credibility. The Board also noted that the applicant had offered no explanation as to why internal relocation would not deal with his alleged concerns, although it noted that there was no need to make any findings about relocation, given that the applicant had simply not established his factual claims.

3.  The applicant made the Leave Application over ten months out of time. The Judge dismissed the application for an extension of time to do so. He found the applicant’s explanation for the delay neither credible nor plausible. He also considered that there were no merits in the  Leave Application. The Judge set out his reasons for refusing the Leave Application at [9] – [15] of the Leave Decision.  He found that the grounds put forward by the applicant were a challenge to the Board’s findings of fact, which was impermissible in an application for judicial review. The Judge nevertheless went on to consider whether there was any error in the Board’s Decision, and concluded that there were no errors of law, and that matters of fact were for the Board to decide.

4.  By the Notice of Appeal filed on 27 April 2026, the applicant claimed:

“… the grounds of this appeal are that the Plaintiff 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.” (sic)

5.  In support of his appeal, the applicant also lodged written submissions on 1 June 2026.  In those submissions, the applicant cited various case authorities on the high standards of fairness and procedural fairness without condescending upon particulars as to how they are relevant to his individual case.

6.  We heard the appeal on 15 June 2026.  A Hindi interpreter was also present to provide language assistance.  At the hearing, the applicant repeated some of the points already made in his written materials. He further added that he was receiving medical treatment in Hong Kong for hypertension and diabetes.

DISCUSSION

7.  The relevant legal principles governing appeals in non-refoulement cases are set out in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14].

8.  In particular, in an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in non-refoulement cases, the Court of Appeal will 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’s role is not to examine the decision maker’s decision afresh as if it were a fresh application for judicial review.  See Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14(6)].

9.  We see no merit in his contentions.  Nowhere in his Notice of Appeal did the applicant identify any error committed by the Judge with specific particulars.  His assertions against the Board’s Decision are general and bare allegations unsupported by reference to the facts of his case.  General assertions of fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].  As the Judge noted, there was no error of law or any procedural unfairness in the Board’s Decision: see [14] of the Leave Decision.  The fact that the applicant may be receiving medical treatment in Hong Kong has no relevance to the grounds on which he sought non-refoulement. There is therefore no viable ground of appeal and we see no basis to interfere with the Leave Decision.

10.  For the above reasons, the applicant’s appeal against the Leave Decision has no merit and is dismissed.