MUHAMMAD ADNAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV429/2025, [2026] HKCA 525

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 2312

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO.429 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 569 OF 2020)

____________________

____________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

Hon Anthony Chan 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) Philips Wong (“Judge”) dated 12 June 2025 by which his application for leave to apply for judicial review (“Leave Application”) against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) dated 21 January 2020 (“Board’s Decision”) was dismissed. By that decision, the Board upheld the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) rejecting the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

2.  The Applicant is a national of Pakistan.  The basis of his non-refoulement claim had been set out in detail in the Board’s Decision, which may be viewed online via the hyperlink contained in footnote 1 of the CALL-1 Form.  In gist, the Applicant claims that if he returns home, he will be harmed by supporters of the Pakistan People’s Party (“PPP”) because of (a) his support of the Pakistani Muslim League (Q) and (b) he is wrongly accused of killing a supporter of the PPP.

3.  In [4] to [8] of the CALL-1 Form, the Judge gave detailed reasons for refusing the Leave Application.

4.  By a Notice of Appeal filed on 23 June 2025, the Applicant appeals against the Judge’s decision.  The Applicant contends that:

“I am disagree with the decision maker authorities. They were totally relied on some web news which officially not recognized. I do not think my claim determined fairly.”

5.  In his Skeleton Argument lodged on 27 February 2026, the Applicant submits that:

(1)     The Director and the Board did not determine the Applicant's case fairly;

(2)     The Applicant was never provided with proper legal and language assistance;

(3)     The Board unlawfully fettered its discretion, acted with procedural unfairness, made an unreasonable or irrational decision, and failed to meet the greater duty of care owed to a self-represented claimant; and

(4)     The authorities acted discriminatorily towards non-refoulement claimants by disposing of cases quickly, contrary to the spirit of the judicial system.

6.  At the hearing of this appeal, the Applicant said that he has nothing more to add.

7.  The general approach of this Court in dealing with appeals in non-refoulement cases has been set out in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14].  In particular, in an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in non-refoulement cases, this Court 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.  This Court’s role is not to examine the Board’s decision afresh as if it is a fresh application for judicial review (see Nupur Mst 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 is an error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022 at [13].

9.  In respect of the grounds of appeal advanced in the Skeleton Argument, we note that those grounds had never been raised in the Form 86 or the affirmation filed in support of the Form 86.  The Applicant has not given any reason why he should be allowed to raise these grounds for the first time at the appeal stage, nor can we find any good reason to allow him to do so.  In any case, the grounds are generalised allegations and devoid of particulars.  We therefore do not allow the Applicant to rely on those grounds and we place no weight on them.

10.  In the premises, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.