WAQAS UR REHMAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 408/2025, [2026] HKCA 634

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 2076

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 408 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 138 OF 2020)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Anthony Chan JA (giving the Judgment of the Court)  :

Introduction

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims)  Martin Wong (“Judge”)  dated 3 June 2025 (“Order”)  refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”)  dated 9 January 2020 (“Board’s Decision”).

Background

2.  The Applicant is a national of Pakistan.  On 26 July 2019, the Applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by a person of opposing political affiliation[1].  The Applicant’s claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“Director”)  on 27 September 2019, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 9 January 2020.  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 dated 3 June 2025[2]. 

3.  The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 3 June 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 16 June 2025, the Applicant states the following :

“1. It is evident from the Director’s Decision that the director failed to appreciate or give the proper importance or weightage to the presence of state acquiescence in the applicant’s case. This resulted in an unfair outcome, where the applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected.

2. The applicant submits that both the Director, the Adjudicator, and the Court failed to consider this argument or that the Director did not give sufficient weight to it before reaching the Decision.

3. The Adjudicator failed to conduct adequate inquiries before finalizing the determination. The Adjudicator stated that I had failed to provide any credible evidence to prove the material elements of my claim.

4. Surprisingly, in the applicant’s Decision, the Director included meanings from relevant COI’s that suited the applicant’s pre-conceived conclusion. This demonstrates a clear case of unfair attitude shown by the Director, which in itself is sufficient to render the applicant’s Decision void.

5. The grounds of this appeal are that the gravity of the applicant’s circumstances has not been properly weighed or recognized by both the putative Respondents when considering the applicant’s non-refoulement claim. The Applicant request an opportunity to present the applicant’s case adequately.” (sic)

5.  In the written submissions filed on 11 March 2026, the Applicant essentially argues that :

(1)  The Director and the Board wrongly assessed the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim[3].

(2)  The Applicant’s right to life is protected under the Basic Law and the Bill of Rights[4].

(3)  The Authorities acted on the basis of quick disposal of non-refoulement cases[5].

(4)  The Director failed to give sufficient weight to state acquiescence, or failed to take such matter into account before reaching his decision[6].

(5)  The Board placed too much reliance on country of origin information and failed to take into account the Applicant’s personal background and experience[7].

(6)  The Director failed to give enough weight to country of origin information that the police in the Applicant’s country would not be able to protect him[8].

(7)  The Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal based on findings which supported the opposite conclusion[9].

6.  At the hearing of this appeal, the Applicant said that he is unable to provide proof because he has no one in Pakistan.  He is now married and has made an application for a dependant visa.

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 and Disposition

9.  All the matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal and written submissions are 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 with no order as to costs.