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

CACV 541/2025, [2026] HKCA 655

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 2072

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 541 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 238 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) Teresa Wu (“the Judge”) dated 11 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 31 December 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The Applicant is a national of Pakistan. On 13 January 2014, the Applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by his distant relative Manzoor because of a land dispute.[1]  The Applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 26 July 2018, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 31 December 2019. 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 11 July 2025.[2]

3.  The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 11 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 the Notice of Appeal filed on 24 July 2025, the Applicant states that:

“THE HIGH COURT DID NOT CONSIDER MY J.R. ADJUDICATOR DID NOT GIVE ME CORRECT DECISION. HIS DECISION IS FULL OF WRONG. PLEASE GRANT MY LEAVE.” (sic)

5.  The Applicant has failed to lodge written submissions in support of the appeal in accordance with the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 11 December 2025. Accordingly, the Applicant is deemed to have waived the right to have an oral hearing of the appeal and elected to have the appeal disposed of on paper. Having considered the documents before us, we consider that it is appropriate to deal with the Applicant’s appeal on paper without an oral hearing.

DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION

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 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.

8.  The matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal are all general allegations without particulars. They do not relate to the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review and do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision.

9.  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.

10.  The Applicant’s appeal has no merit, and is dismissed.