MALIK INZAMAM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 148/2026, [2026] HKCA 817

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 624

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 148 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 58 OF 2021)

________________________

________________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

Hon Lisa Wong J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

Introduction

1.  This is an appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Vincent Lung (“Judge”) on 16 February 2026 refusing to grant the applicant, a national of Vietnam, leave to apply for judicial review (“Judge’s Decision”). The intended judicial review sought to quash the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / adjudicator of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dated 30 October 2020 (“Board’s Decision”), which upheld the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 31 March 2020 rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

2.  The applicant’s claim was made on the basis of a fear of being harmed or killed, upon refoulement to Pakistan, by supporters of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf party due to his refusal to be recruited as he was a supporter of a rival political party, namely the Pakistani Muslim League (Nawaz). Details of the applicant’s background, the circumstances giving rise to his said alleged fear, the arguments advanced by him before the Board and the Board’s reasons for rejecting his appeal are all set out in the Board’s Decision[1]. For the grounds advanced by the applicant in support of his application for leave to apply for judicial review and the Judge’s reasons for refusal, see [7] – [12] of the Form CALL-1.

Appeal to this Court

3.  By the notice of appeal filed herein on 23 February 2026, the applicant appealed against the Judge’s Decision, essentially on the grounds that (1) the Judge did not serve justice as he reached the same determination as the Director and the Board, (2) his life was still in danger in his home country, (3) he has got married in Hong Kong and is in the course of applying for a dependant’s visa, and (4) he did not believe his case was determined fairly. He also attached a copy of his marriage certificate dated 1 November 2024.

4.  The applicant’s written submission dated 30 March 2026 asserted (1) that the decisions of the Director and the Board were unreasonable and unfair; (2) that the applicant has human rights; (3) that the decisions made against his claims reflected a policy for quick disposals of non-refoulement cases; (4) that the Director failed to give weight to the presence of state acquiescence; (5) that the Board placed too much reliance on country of origin information rather than the applicant’s personal background and experience; and (6) that the Board made its decision based on findings that ought to have led to the applicant’s appeal being allowed.

5.  At the hearing, the applicant stated that he has already submitted all his documents, including his marriage certificate.

Legal Principles

6.  We refer to 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] for the principles governing the Court of First Instance’s role in judicial review in non-refoulement claims and the Court of Appeal’s approach in an appeal against refusal of leave for judicial review in non-refoulement claims.

7.  First, the primary decision-makers in a non-refoulement claim are the Director and the Board. They alone assess the evidence and find relevant facts. An application for leave for judicial review does not provide a further avenue of appeal. The court will not re-assess the non-refoulement claim. It will intervene by way of judicial review only for errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality.

8.  Second, an appeal against a refusal of leave to apply for judicial review is not the occasion for the Court of Appeal to examine the decision of the Board afresh as if the appeal were a fresh application for leave for judicial review. This court is concerned with the decision of the judge at first instance, which it will consider in light of the grounds of appeal raised by the applicant. The Court of Appeal shall interfere only if the judge had erred in law, failed to take into account a relevant matter or was otherwise plainly wrong. If no such error is shown, the appeal should be dismissed.

Discussion

9.  In the present case, the Board found no real risk of harm to the applicant upon refoulement because (1) the past ill-treatment did not attain the minimum level of severity; (2) there was no involvement of public officials; (3) reasonable state protection would be available; and (4) internal relocation to a city outside of his home area would be viable for the applicant. These are findings of fact open to the Board on the evidence it received and for the reasons it gave. The applicant has failed to show any or any reasonably arguable public law error in the Board’s Decision.

10.  Equally, the applicant has not demonstrated any error in the Judge’s Decision. We are not satisfied that there is any error in the Judge’s Decision.

11.  The applicant’s appeal is accordingly dismissed.