SAEED ASIF SHEZAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 1160/2025, [2026] HKCA 100

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 5364

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 1160 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1718 OF 2020)

________________________

_____________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Hon Chow JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Teresa Wu (“the Judge”) dated 5 December 2025 (“the Order”) refusing to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 15 November 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 29 May 2018 refusing his non-refoulement claim.

2.  The Applicant alleges that, if refouled to Pakistan, he will be harmed or killed by his cousin due to a political dispute between the Applicant’s family and his cousin. The Applicant’s background, the basis of his claim, the findings of the Board and its reasons for dismissing his appeal against the Director’s decision have been set out in the Board’s Decision, and referred to by the Judge in the Judge’s decision (see §3 of the CALL-1 Form). We do not propose to repeat them here.

3.  The Judge’s reasons for dismissing the Applicant’s leave application are set out at §§4-10 of the CALL-1 Form. In gist, the Judge considered that the Applicant had failed to provide any explanation for his delay in making the leave application, or raise any matter of substance to challenge the Board’s Decision. The Judge did not consider there was any substantial ground showing any error of law, irrationality, or procedural unfairness in relation to the Board’s Decision. The Judge therefore refused to extend time for the Applicant to make the leave application.

THIS APPEAL

4.  In his Notice of Appeal filed on 9 December 2025, the Applicant stated that he wanted to appeal and he did not agree with the Judge’s decision.

5.  In his written submissions lodged on 12 January 2026, the Applicant stated that his life was still in danger in his home country and he could not go back there. He also asserted that he had more information to tell this Court, without giving any particulars.

6.  At the hearing of the appeal, the Applicant said that he needed more time to resolve his problems in his home country.

DISCUSSION

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’s role is not to examine the Board or Director’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.  Further, 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, at §13. No such error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board is shown in the present case.

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.