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

CACV 343/2026, [2026] HKCA 1043

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 1651

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 343 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1764 OF 2021)

________________________

_____________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

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

Introduction

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Levy (“the Judge”) dated 27 March 2026 (“the Decision”) refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 17 May 2021 (“the Director’s Subsequent Decision”), refusing the Applicant’s request to make a claim under s.37ZO of the Immigration Ordinance (Cap.115) (“the Request”).

Background

2.  The Applicant is a national of Pakistan. He was arrested by the police in April 2009 for illegally remaining in Hong Kong. He raised a torture claim on 28 April 2009. His claim was assessed under the Unified Screening Mechanism and rejected on 8 January 2015 (“the Director’s Earlier Decision”). Whilst he initially sought to appeal to the torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”), he then applied on 17 October 2016 to withdraw the appeal, and it was dismissed accordingly. The Applicant was repatriated to Pakistan. However, on 20 October 2019, he entered Hong Kong again, and surrendered to the Immigration Department in April 2021.

3.  On 19 April 2021, the Applicant in writing made a request to the Director to make a subsequent claim for non-refoulement protection based on his fear of the continuing presence of the risk of harm from Sheikh, an influential property developer. In his previously rejected non-refoulement claim, the Applicant claimed that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by Sheikh due to a money and land dispute after the suspected murder of the Applicant’s father by Sheikh. He also claimed that he was at risk of being arrested by the Pakistani police in relation to a charge of attempted murder, for which he had been framed by Sheikh. The Applicant’s request was rejected by the Director on 17 May 2021. Details of the Applicant’s subsequent claim and the Director’s reasons for rejecting it can be found in the Form CALL-1 dated 27 March 2026. The Director found that there was no indication that his fear of threats from Sheikh was real and imminent. Essentially, the Director found that the Applicant’s story did not establish the threat claimed. Furthermore, the claimed threat had already been examined in the Applicant’s previous torture claim / claim for non-refoulement protection, and there had not been any significant change of circumstances since that claim had been determined.

4.  The Applicant’s application for an extension of time to file his application for leave to apply for judicial review, and the application for leave to apply for judicial review itself, was refused by the Judge on 27 March 2026. Details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can be found in the Form CALL-1. The Judge noted that the Applicant’s Form 86 was directed at matters arising out of the Director’s Earlier Decision and not the Director’s Subsequent Decision, so that strictly speaking, neither the Form 86 nor the supporting affirmation provided any grounds for seeking leave to apply for judicial review against the Director’s Subsequent Decision. The Director found that the Applicant had no cogent evidence to support the Request. On the facts, the enmity with Sheikh that arose in 2008 should have been dispersed.

Grounds of Appeal

5.  In the Notice of Appeal filed on 2 April 2026, the Applicant stated that:

“I do not agree with the decision of the Court of First Instance. The court did not scrutinize my claim properly. Despite my problem in my home country is very severe the court of First Instance and the Torture Claims Appeal Board rejected my claim. The decision makers considered my claims as a simply. If I return to my country I will be killed by my enemies.” (sic)

6.  The Applicant failed to comply with the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals to lodge written submissions in support of the appeal on or before 19 May 2026. Accordingly, the Applicant is deemed to have waived the right to have an oral hearing of the appeal and to have 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

7.  In an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in non-refoulement cases, the Court of Appeal will 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’s role is not to examine the Board’s decision afresh as if it were 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.  

Discussion and Disposition

9.  The matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal are all general allegations without particulars. They do not identify any error in the Decision or engage with the Judge’s reasoning. They do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision. We do not see any reasonably arguable basis for saying that the Judge was wrong in saying that the Applicant did not advance any grounds for challenging the Director’s Subsequent Decision.

10.  The Applicant’s appeal has no merit, and is dismissed with no order as to costs.