BUTT KHALID JAVED v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 246/2025, [2026] HKCA 683

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 1553

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 246 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 3869 OF 2019)

________________________

BETWEEN

_____________________

_____________________

JUDGMENT

_____________________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Martin Wong (“the Judge”) dated 16 April 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 30 August 2018 (“the Board’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The Applicant is a national of Pakistan. On 12 March 2014, the Applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by people of opposing political affiliation.[1] The Applicant’s claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 1 March 2017, and his appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 30 August 2018. 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 16 April 2025.[2]

3.  The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 16 April 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 29 April 2025, the Applicant states the following that:

“I am the applicant here in the decision made by Deputy high Court Judge MARTIN WONG has been reached unfairly without membering given me the opportunity to clarify my case. the situation is in my country still unsafe for me.” (sic)

5.  In the written submissions lodged on 23 February 2026, the Applicant argues that:

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

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

(3) The Director failed to give sufficient 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.

(5) The Director failed to give enough weightage to country of origin information that the police in the Applicant’s country would not be able to protect, or failed to take such argument into account before reaching his decision.

(6) The Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal based on the findings which the Board ought to allow the appeal.

6.  At the hearing on 24 March 2026, the applicant had nothing to add to his written submissions.

DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION

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

9.  Contrary to the complaint of not having an opportunity to clarify his case and the situation in his home country, the Applicant attended a hearing in open court before the Judge but failed to raise any valid grounds to challenge the Board’s findings.[3]

10.  The matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal and written submissions are all general 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 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.

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