|
CACV 1035/2025, [2026] HKCA 1427
On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 5165
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 1035 OF 2025
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1073 OF 2025)
_____________________
BETWEEN
|
ANSARI SOHRAB ALAM
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
|
TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
|
Putative Respondent
|
|
and
|
|
|
DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
|
Putative Interested Party
|
_____________________
| Before: |
Hon Poon CJHC and Ng J in Court |
| Date of Hearing: |
11 August 2026 |
| Date of Judgment: |
2 September 2026 |
_____________________
JUDGMENT
_____________________
The Court:
INTRODUCTION
1. This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of DHCJ K.W.
Lung (“the Judge”) dated 6 November 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 February 2025 (“the Board’s Decision”).
BACKGROUND
2. The Applicant is a national of India. The Applicant
previously lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by a
creditor who is a Hindi because he was unable to repay a loan, and because he is a Muslim. The Applicant’s claim
was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 20 November 2024, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the
Board on 18 February 2025. 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 6 November 2025.
3. The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial
review was refused by the Judge on 6 November 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 the Notice of Appeal filed on 17 November 2025, the
Applicant states the following that:
“RESPECTED high court I want to apply Judicial review against my ORDER because I am not
satisfied with this ORDER. I want to let you know more that my life is still danger in my home country and
if you send me back or Immigration send me back my country now then may be I will died there. Thank you.”
5. In the skeleton argument filed on 6 July 2026, the Applicant
states that he disagrees with the decisions of the Director and the Board because his case was not determined
fairly. The Applicant complains that he was prejudiced in the proceedings below by reason of a lack of
language and legal assistance, and the Board was in breach of the principles of procedural fairness and
unreasonableness (including unlawfully fettered its discretion to refuse his appeal, not conducting more
analysis on his claim, and not taking greater care to a self-represented claimant). The Applicant further
argues that the authorities were merely active on the basis of quick disposal of non-refoulement cases, which is
unacceptable.
6. The appeal was heard on 11 August 2026. The Applicant
attended the hearing in person with the assistance of a Hindi interpreter and basically repeated his case.
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. Regarding the lack
of legal and language assistance, it has been repeatedly emphasised by
this Court that as a matter of law, a non-refoulement claimant is not entitled to free legal representation at
all stages of the process and that the high standard of fairness required by law does not entail interpretation
service being made available to an applicant all the time as he desires: Re Pante Luisa
Tuppil [2025] HKCA 1123 at [11]. In any event, the Applicant was educated up to
college level. He was able to prepare his skeleton argument in reasonable English.
10. The matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal and
skeleton argument are all general allegations without particulars. They do not constitute any valid grounds of
appeal against the Judge’s decision.
11. 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.
12. The Applicant’s appeal has no merit, and is dismissed.
(Jeremy Poon)
Chief Judge of the
High Court |
(Peter Ng)
Judge of the Court of
First Instance |
The Applicant, acting in person
|