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

CACV 1159/2025, [2026] HKCA 78

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 5796

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 1159 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1361 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 Levy (“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 23 June 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 19 June 2018 rejecting his non-refoulement claim.

2.  The Applicant alleges that, if refouled to Pakistan, he will be harmed or killed by members of the Pakistan Muslim League (N) (“PML(N)”) because he supported another political group and refused to support PML(N). 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 are set out in detail in the Board’s Decision, and referred to by the Judge in the Judge’s decision (see at §§1 and 3 of the Form CALL-1). We do not propose to repeat them here.

3.  The Judge’s reasons for dismissing the Applicant’s leave application are set out at §§5-8 of the Form CALL-1. In gist, the Judge considered that the Applicant had failed to identify any or any proper grounds of judicial review. The Judge also held that the Applicant had failed to show that there were any errors of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision.

THIS APPEAL

4.  In his Notice of Appeal filed on 9 December 2025, the Applicant alleges that the Judge’s decision was reached unfairly without giving him an opportunity to clarify his case and the situation in his country.

5.  The Applicant has failed to lodge written submissions in support of his appeal in accordance with the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 9 December 2025. Accordingly, he is deemed to have waived the right to have an oral hearing of his appeal and elected to have his 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

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’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.  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.

8.  The Applicant’s complaint that the Judge’s decision was reached unfairly without giving him an opportunity to clarify his case and the situation in his country has no validity. The Applicant did not request for an oral hearing of his leave application in the Form 86 or in his supporting affirmation dated 30 June 2020. No proper ground of judicial review was advanced in either the Form 86 or the Applicant’s supporting affirmation. The Judge was entitled, in the exercise of her discretion, to deal with the application on paper pursuant to Order 53, rule 3(3) of the Rules of the High Court, Cap 4A.  

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.