HAMID UMAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 152/2026, [2026] HKCA 945

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 793

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 152 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 515 OF 2021)

____________

____________

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

Hon G Lam JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

Introduction

1.  This is an appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Jeffrey Chau (“Judge”) on 12 February 2026 dismissing the applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/adjudicator of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dated 1 April 2021.  In that decision, the Board upheld the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 18 February 2019 rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

Background

2.  The applicant is a national of Pakistan born in 1992 and his claim was made on the basis that if he returned to Pakistan, the members of the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (“PMLN”) would harm or kill him because he switched political allegiance to a rival political party.  Details of the applicant’s background, the basis of his claim and arguments advanced before the Board as well as the Board’s reasons for rejecting his appeal are all set out in the Board’s decision: see [6] of the Form CALL-1.  The Judge has set out the grounds advanced by the applicant in support of the application and his reasons for refusal of the application: see [10] – [17] of the Form CALL-1.

Appeal to this Court

3.  On 23 February 2026, the applicant filed his Notice of Appeal against the Judge’s decision.  His stated grounds of appeal were, essentially, that the Judge erred in law by considering the merits of the case instead of whether it was an arguable case; that the Judge failed to find “arguable legal errors” in relation to state protection or acquiescence, over-reliance on country of origin information, and assessment of risk upon refoulement; that the Judge erred by describing the applicant’s grounds as vague; that the Board made unfair findings on credibility and did not properly consider explanations for inconsistencies; and that the Judge failed to consider his case with anxious scrutiny.

4.  The applicant has lodged written submissions in which he recites the legal principles relating to fairness and unreasonableness, without explaining their specific application to his case.

5.  At the hearing, the applicant stated that he was still receiving threats from Pakistan, but he did not know the senders or the phone numbers.

Discussion

6.  In assessing the merits of the appeal, we shall have regard to the legal principles which this Court has adopted in dealing with appeals in non-refoulement cases: see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14]; Re Md Shohel Sheak [2018] HKCA 714 at [13]; and Re Limbu Birkhaman [2019] HKCA 50 at [11].  In particular, the role of the Court in a judicial review is not to provide a further avenue of appeal.  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.  In the determination of an appeal against the refusal of leave by the Court of First Instance, 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.  It is not the role of this Court to examine the decision of the Board afresh as if the appeal were a fresh application for judicial review.

7.  In the present case, the Board found that there was no real risk of harm upon refoulement as alleged, because the applicant was not a person of adverse interest to the members of the PMLN at the time of the decision or in the reasonably foreseeable future, and adequate state protection would be available if the applicant required it.  Therefore, the Board concluded that it was not necessary to consider or to make findings in relation to internal relocation.  These are findings of fact open to the Board based on the evidence it received and for the reasons it gave.  The applicant has failed to show any reasonably arguable public law error in relation to the Board’s decision.

8.  Equally, the applicant has not been able to demonstrate any error in the decision of the Judge or advance any viable ground of appeal against the Judge’s decision.  We are not satisfied that there is any error in the Judge’s decision.

9.  The applicant’s appeal is accordingly dismissed.