KHAN RAEES HAIDER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 893/2025, [2026] HKCA 144

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 4698

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 893 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2404 OF 2020)

________________________

_____________________

________________________

JUDGMENT

________________________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of DHCJ (Non-refoulement Claims) Philips Wong (“the Judge”) dated 9 October 2025 (“the Order”) refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 29 October 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The Applicant is a national of Pakistan. On 11 November 2019, he lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be at risk of harmed because of conflict with Shia Muslims in Rawalpindi.  The Applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 5 February 2020, and his appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 29 October 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 9 October 2025. 

3.  The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 9 October 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 his Notice of Appeal filed on 17 October 2025, the Applicant states the following that:

“I am disagree with the decision maker authorities. They make same decision like Torture Claime appeal Board and director of Immigration. I think Judiciary system have some Error. Decision makers not give me Justice. My life have still Treating in my country, our police not protect us, what will we do. I do not think my claim determined fairly.”

5.  In the skeleton argument filed on 19 December 2025, the Applicant essentially argues that:

(1)     The Director and the Board wrongly assessed the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim.   The decisions were unreasonable and unfair.

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

(3)     The Director failed to appreciate or give proper weight to state acquiescence.

(4)     The Board placed too much reliance on country of origin information and failed to take into account the Applicant’s personal background and experience, which is unreasonable and procedurally unfair.

(5)     The Director failed to give enough weight to country of origin information which supports the notion that the police in the Applicant’s country would not be able to protect him.

(6)     The Board’s decision was irrational because they dismissed the Applicant’s appeal based on findings from which the Board ought to allow the appeal.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

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 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)).

7.  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 below will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there are errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022.  

DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION

8.  The matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal are all general allegations without particulars whereas the complaints in the skeleton argument are directed at the Director and/or the Board.  They do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the Order.  Furthermore, general assertions of fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].

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.