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

CACV 779/2025, [2026] HKCA 423

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 4205

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 779 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 361 OF 2020)

________________________

_____________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of DHCJ Michael Wong (“the Judge”) dated 16 September 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 24 January 2020 (“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 (i) Ilyas and Ali Zaman from Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) who loathed his support to their rival party, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, and (ii) Kiramat Ali due to his love affair with Ali’s daughter.  The Applicant’s claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 14 September 2018, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 24 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.    

3.  The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 16 September 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 22 September 2025, the Applicant states the following:

“… the grounds of this appeal are that the Applicant will face hardship if he is to return back to his home country and that the Torture Claims Appeal Board has significantly relied on the source of news which is not officially recognized, or it is simply hearsay. They have also relied on some cases which are outdated considering the dramatic changes. The lack of credible source of information has resulted in them making groundless speculations.”

5.  In the 2-page submissions filed on 27 January 2026, apart from reiterating his non-refoulement claim, he essentially requests the Court to give him enough time to provide all reports of his brother’s death, who was killed by his enemies.  He further states that he has no contact with his family because they are all afraid of his enemies, and that he was upset and depressed as he divorced his wife due to the threats of life in Pakistan.

6.  The appeal was heard on 12 March 2026.  The Applicant attended the hearing in person with the assistance of an Urdu interpreter and had nothing further to add.

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 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

9.  The matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal and written submissions are all bare allegations without particulars against the Board.  They do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision.

10.  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. 

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