RE ABBAS ARSHAD

CACV 6/2026, [2026] HKCA 377

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 6033

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 525 OF 2021)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Cheung JA (giving the Judgment of the Court)  :

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Jeffrey Chau dated 24 December 2025 ([2025] HKCFI 6033)  (‘the Leave Decision’)  refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review (‘the Leave Application’)  against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (‘the Board’)  dated 25 March 2021 (‘the Board’s Decision’), whereby the Board dismissed his appeal/petition against the decision of the Director of Immigration (‘the Director’)  dated 10 September 2018, refusing his non-refoulement claim (except for torture)[1].

2.  The applicant’s background, the basis of his claim and arguments advanced before the Board as well as the Board’s reasons for rejecting his non-refoulement claim are all set out in the Form CALL-1: see [1]-[4], [9] of the Leave Decision.

3.  The applicant claimed that he entered Hong Kong illegally on 17 December 2012 by sea from the Mainland and remained in Hong Kong since.  On 20 December 2012, he lodged a torture claim.  On 28 June 2013, the applicant’s torture claim was dismissed by the Director.  In August 2013, the applicant lodged his non-refoulement claim except for torture.  The basis of his claim is that if he returned to Pakistan, he will be harmed or killed by Murad and Waris due to land dispute, and Murad, Waris and followers of Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan (‘SSP’)  due to religious conflict[2].  The claim was dismissed by the Director on 10 September 2018.

4.  The Judge sets out his reasons for refusing the Leave Application: see [8], [9]-[11] of the Leave Decision.  We will not repeat the details herein.

5.  By the Notice of Appeal filed on 5 January 2026, the applicant stated the following :

‘I do not agree with the decision of the Court of First Instance because the learned Judge did not review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board. My problem is severe and if I return to my home country I will be killed by my enemies.’

6.  In his written submissions, the applicant mostly made bare allegations without any specifics or elaboration as to how any of those submissions relate to the Judge’s decision.  They include how he submitted all the proof, or how the Judge’s decision to refuse his appeal was unreasonable, or how the Board did not give sufficient chance to him to arrange relevant evidence, or how the Board relied on news which was not officially recognized or simply hearsay.

7.  In Court, the applicant said that he is a diabetic patient which requires him to have treatment in Hong Kong.  He also has eye and teeth problems.

I.  Discussion

8.  The relevant legal principles governing appeals in non-refoulement cases are set out in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14].

9.  In particular, 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 decision maker’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)].

10.  In light of the above, it is thus incumbent on the applicant to point out the errors in the Leave Decision with sufficient particulars and specifics.

11.  However, nowhere in his Notice of Appeal nor his written submission did the applicant identify any error committed by the Judge with specific particulars.  His assertions are all general, bare and vague allegations unsupported by specific particulars or evidence.  General assertions of his fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].  The Court will not usurp the role of the Board/Director.  Assessment of evidence, country of origin information materials, 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.  No such error was demonstrated by the applicant.  Clearly, his assertions do not constitute viable grounds of appeal and lack substance.  His oral submissions do not carry the case further.  We see no basis to interfere with the Leave Decision.

12.  For the above reasons, the applicant’s appeal against the Leave Decision has no merit and is dismissed.