SHAHID ALI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 666/2025, [2026] HKCA 534

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 3036

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 666 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 3180 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 K.W. Lung (“the Judge”) dated 22 August 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 13 July 2018 (“the Board’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The Applicant is a national of Pakistan. The Applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by his ex-girlfriend’s family especially her father. The Applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 17 March 2015 and 8 February 2017, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board.

3.  The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 22 August 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 1 September 2025, the Applicant stated the following:

“… the grounds of this appeal are that the gravity of my circumstances have noted been weighed or realized by both the putative Respondents while considering my non-refoulement claim. I should be given an opportunity to plead my case properly.”

5.  In the supporting affirmation dated 1 September 2025, the Applicant states the following:

“2. I have been informed by my family members that it is dangerous for me to return to Pakistan as I would be killed, so I did not go back eventually.

3. I am unrepresented and have no means to instruct a private lawyer.

4. However, I understand that there is a good ground of appeal that was not necessarily considered at the stage of applying for leave for judicial review.

5. Additionally, I was informed that the Director of Immigration and the Adjudicator did not see the grounds to reverse their decisions.”

6.  In the skeleton submissions filed on 19 January 2026, the Applicant reiterates the general principle about the “high standards of fairness” required in determining a torture claim, and cited some other general principles without advancing any substantive argument against the Order.

7.  The appeal was adjourned from 27 February 2026 to 24 March 2026 because the Applicant was unwell. The Applicant attended the hearing with the assistance of an Urdu interpreter. In court, the Applicant added that he suffered from asthma and diabetes.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

8.  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)).

9.  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

10.  The matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal, supporting affirmation and skeleton submissions are all bare allegations without particulars. They do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision.

11.  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.

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