YOUNAS WASEEM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 1128/2025, [2026] HKCA 1469

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 5563

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 1128 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1655 OF 2020)

________________________

_____________________

_____________________

JUDGMENT

_____________________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of DHCJ (Non-refoulement Claims) Vincent Lung (“the Judge”) dated 19 November 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 15 June 2017 (“the Board’s Decision”).  

BACKGROUND

2.  The Applicant is a national of Pakistan.  The Applicant previously lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by his paternal uncles over a land dispute. The Applicant’s claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 8 January 2016 and 21 February 2017, and the appeal against the Director’s decisions was rejected by the Board on 15 June 2017.  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.

3.  The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 19 November 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 2 December 2025, the Applicant essentially argues that he was prejudiced in the proceedings below by reason of a lack of language and legal assistance, and that the Judge failed to apply anxious scrutiny to the Board’s Decision (including the Board’s approach to credibility, internal relocation, and country of origin information.)

5.  In his lengthy skeleton submissions filed on 10 July 2026, the Applicant reiterates and expands on the points he made in the Notice of Appeal.  The Applicant additionally complains that the Judge refused to extend the time limit for filing his leave application, stating that there was no explanation for the delay.  While the Applicant accepts there was delay, he explains that his delay was simply because he did not know about the 3-month time limit for filing his leave application as he lacked legal representation and his English proficiency was limited.

6.  The appeal was heard on 14 August 2026.  The Applicant attended the hearing in person with the assistance of an Urdu interpreter. He told this court he was married in Hong Kong and had 2 children. All were Hong Kong permanent residents. His wife also suffered from mental illness, and he was her primary carer.

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 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 & DISPOSITION

9.  Regarding the lack of legal and language assistance, it has been repeatedly emphasised by this Court that as a matter of law, a non-refoulement claimant is not entitled to free legal representation at all stages of the process and that the high standard of fairness required by law does not entail interpretation service being made available to an applicant all the time as he desires: Re Pante Luisa Tuppil [2025] HKCA 1123 at [11].

10.  Regarding the Applicant’s complaint that the Judge refused to extend the time limit for him to file his leave application, we note that his Form 86 was filed on 14 August 2020 in respect of the Board’s decision dated 15 June 2017. This is serious undue delay and no good reason had been provided to the Judge for it.

11.  Regarding his claim that his wife and children are permanent resident in Hong Kong, even if his claim is true, the fact remains that the Applicant does not have any right to enter or remain in Hong Kong.  It is well established that a family member (who has a right of permanent residence in Hong Kong) of a person (who has no right to remain in Hong Kong) cannot rely on the family member’s own rights under the Bill of Rights or the Basic Law to require the Director to grant a right to remain in Hong Kong to that other person: BI v Director of Immigration [2016] 2 HKLRD 520 at [92(7)] and Comilang Milagros Tecson v Director of Immigration (2019) 22 HKCFAR 59 at [57], [65] and [69]. 

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

13.  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. 

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