SAMEER NAQASH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CACV 496/2025, [2026] HKCA 686

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 2638

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 496 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 327 OF 2020)

________________________

BETWEEN

_____________________

_____________________

JUDGMENT

_____________________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Michael Wong (“the Judge”) dated 2 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 4 March 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The Applicant is a national of Pakistan. On 13 September 2019, the Applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed because the then ruling government led by the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf was after him.[1] The Applicant also claimed that he was wanted by the authorities on false charges and would be arrested and punished for crimes he did not commit.[2] The Applicant’s claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 30 October 2019, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 4 March 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, the hyperlink to which can be found in the CALL-1 Form dated 2 July 2025.[3]

3.  The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 2 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 14 July 2025, the Applicant states the following that:

“1. The decisions are unlawful.

2. The Decisions failed to take into account many things and assues.

3. I have life’s danger in my home country Indonesia, so why, i can’t go back to my Home Country. Please help me to save my life” (sic)

5.  In the supporting affirmation of the same date, the Applicant states the following that:

“The Decisions are unlawful. I don’t want to go back to my home Country, because my life is in danger in Pakistan. The decisions failed to take into account the dangers and the risk of my life. I appeal to the Honourable Court, please reconsider my Claim and grant me leave. Because, this is a mater of a Human’s life.” (sic)

6.  In the written submissions lodged on 2 March 2026, apart from reiterating the factual background and chronology of events in relation to his non-refoulement claim as well as reciting a case and making generic submissions on the general principles of law relating to non-refoulement claims, the Applicant essentially argues that:

(1) The Director failed to appreciate state acquiescence in the Applicant’s case.

(2) The Applicant was tortured by the police, state law enforcement agencies and those in the high ups of political circles.

(3) The state and its public officials failed to provide reasonable protection to its citizens.

(4) The Director failed to take into account such argument (i.e. lack of state protection) before making his decision.

(5) The Director listed relevant country of origin information supporting the Applicant’s aversions that the police in Pakistan would not be able to protect, and failed to consider the same and ruled otherwise.

(6) The Director while referring to relevant country of origin information kept including meaning which suited his pre-conceived conclusion.

(7) Corruption and incompetency of the administration in Pakistan is still a serious problem.

(8) The Director failed to attain a high standard of fairness as required by the Wednesbury test.

(9) The Board failed to make sufficient enquiry before making its decision.

(10) The Applicant has no or limited options at his disposal to bring evidence before the Board when he was under the custody of the Immigration Department in Hong Kong.

(11) The Board failed to give sufficient chance to him to arrange relevant evidence.

(12) The Director violated the laws in relation to non-refoulement protection in the Applicant’s case.

7.  At the hearing on 24 March 2026, the applicant had nothing to add.

DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION

8.  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)).

9.  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.

10.  The matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal, affirmation 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.