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

CACV 362/2025, [2026] HKCA 832

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 1679

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 362 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2956 OF 2019)

________________________

_____________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of DHCJ KW Lung (“the Judge”) dated 27 May 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 27 September 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The Applicant is a national of Pakistan. On 24 June 2013, the Applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by his enemies, namely Malik Muhammad Ali and his son, Fakhar Abbas, and Saddique’s syndicates, as the Applicant’s brother was the president of the Muslim League Student Federation.  The Applicant also feared the police as faked police reports were filed against him.  The Applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 8 September 2017, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 27 September 2019.  Details of the Applicant’s claim and the Board’s reasons for rejecting the Applicant’s appeals can be found in the judgment dated 27 May 2025 (“the Judgment”). 

3.  The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 27 May 2025.  Details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can be found in the judgment. 

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

4.  In the Notice of Appeal filed on 3 June 2025, the Applicant stated that:

“I am Disagree with The decision Maker authorities. The decision Made by The Director of Immegration, As well as decision made by The Torture Claims Appeal Board. I do not Think my case determined Fairlly.”

5.  The Applicant has failed to lodge written submissions in support of the appeal in accordance with the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals.  Accordingly, the Applicant is deemed to have waived the right to have an oral hearing of the appeal and elected to have the appeal disposed of on paper.  Having considered the documents before us, we consider that it is appropriate to deal with the Applicant’s appeal on paper without an oral hearing.

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 bare allegations without particulars.  They do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision.

9.  The Applicant has failed to identify or substantiate 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.