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

CACV 564/2025, [2026] HKCA 721

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 3038

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 564 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 835 OF 2020)

________________________

BETWEEN

_____________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

Hon Ng J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of DHCJ (Non-refoulement Claims) Lewis Law (“the Judge”) dated 17 July 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 April 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The Applicant is a national of India. The Applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by people in the Hindu community of his village because he is a Muslim. The Applicant’s claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 16 April 2018, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 27 April 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 17 July 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 31 July 2025, the Applicant states that:

“…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 They have also relied on some cases which are outdated considering the dramatic changes.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 skeleton argument filed on 20 March 2026, the Applicant essentially disputes the decisions of the Director and the Board, without advancing any substantive argument against the Judge’s decision.

6.  The appeal was heard on 14 April 2026. The Applicant attended the hearing in person with the assistance of a Punjabi interpreter and added that he has a surgical appointment in October 2027.

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 skeleton argument are directed at the Director and the Board, and they are all bare allegations without particulars. 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.