KHADIM QAISER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CACV 1138/2025, [2026] HKCA 1470

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 5874

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 1138 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2155 OF 2023)

________________________

_____________________

_____________________

JUDGMENT

_____________________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of DHCJ Bruno Chan (“the Judge”) dated 2 December 2025 (“the Order”) refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dated 15 November 2023 (“the Board’s Decision”).  

BACKGROUND

2.  The Applicant is a national of Pakistan.  The Applicant and his brother previously lodged non-refoulement claims on the basis that, if refouled, they would be harmed or killed by the Malik family who were local gangsters over their personal disputes in their home village. The Applicant’s claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 20 October 2022, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 15 November 2023.  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.

3.  The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 2 December 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 3 December 2025, the Applicant states the following that:

“1. The Applicant submits that the Director, the Adjudicator, and the Court have failed to take such argument into account or that the Director has failed to give sufficient weight to such argument before reaching the Decision.

2. The Director’s Decision, it was evident that the director had failed to appreciate or give the proper importance or weight to the presence of state Acquiescence in the Applicant’s case. This has indeed led to an unfair outcome of rejecting the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

3. The Adjudicator failed to make a sufficient inquiry before finalizing the determination. The Adjudicator stated that the applicant had failed to provide any credible evidence to prove the material elements of his claim.

4. The Adjudicator has failed to give a sufficient chance to the applicant to arrange relevant evidence for his non-refoulement claim as well as his appeal.

5. Surprisingly, the director, in his Decision, while referring to relevant COIs. Kept including meaning which suited his pre-conceived conclusion. This was a clean case of unfair attitude shown by the Director, which in itself is enough to render his Decision void.” (sic)

5.  In the written submission filed on 17 April 2026, the Applicant cities some authorities and reiterates the general principles like about the “high standards of fairness” required in determining a torture claim on the part of the decision maker and the duty to act fairly.  However, no arguments are advanced as to how the Judge has erred.  Further, 2 documents are attached which purport to be a copy of medical report and a copy of police report but without explaining their relevance to this appeal.

6.  The appeal was heard on 14 August 2026.  The Applicant failed to attend the hearing.  We accordingly dismissed his application with reasons to be handed down.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

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 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)).

8.  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.  

DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION

9.  The matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal and written submission are all general allegations without particulars.  They do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision.

10.  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. 

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