SAJJAD HUSSAIN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 1254/2025, [2026] HKCA 327

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 6027

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 1254 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 682 OF 2021)

________________________

_____________________

________________________

JUDGMENT

________________________

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

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Jeffrey Chau (“the Judge”) dated 24 December 2025 (“the Order”) refusing to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 28 April 2021 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 24 October 2019.

2.  The Applicant alleges that, if refouled to Pakistan, he will be harmed or killed by two maternal uncles (Waheed Iqbal and Zahid Iqbal) of his estranged wife because he intended to leave his wife, a Hong Kong resident[1]. The Applicant’s background, the basis of his claim, the findings of the Board and its reasons for dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the Director’s decision have been set out in detail in the Board’s Decision, and referred to by the Judge in the Judge’s decision (see §4 of the CALL-1 Form).  We do not propose to repeat them here.

3.  The Judge’s reasons for dismissing the Applicant’s leave application are set out at §§5-10 of the CALL-1 Form.  In gist, the Judge considered that the Applicant had not advanced any valid ground for seeking relief in his application, and there were no errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision.

THIS APPEAL

4.  In his Notice of Appeal 30 December 2025, the Applicant states that he does not agree with the decisions made by the authorities because they relied on “some web news which [is] officially not recognised”, and failed to properly investigate into his claim.  He asserts that his case was not determined fairly.

5.  In his written submissions lodged on 29 January 2026, the Applicant complains about the lack of legal and language assistance. He alleges generally that the Board unfairly fettered its discretion and acted in a procedurally unfair manner, and its decision was unreasonable or irrational in the public law sense and was a result of procedural errors or unfairness.  He also alleges that the authorities acted in a discriminatory manner towards non-refoulement claimants.

6.  The Applicant did not appear at the hearing of the appeal.

DISCUSSION

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 or Director’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.  Further, 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, at §13.  No such error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board is shown in the present case.

9.  The matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal and written submissions are all new points which were not raised in his application below.  He is not entitled to raise them for the first time in the Court of Appeal.

10.  In any event, the Applicant’s complaint about the lack of legal and language assistance has no merit.  The Applicant was assisted by the Duty Lawyer Service in relation to the assessment of his non-refoulement claim by the Director, and plainly had legal and language assistance at that stage.  The Applicant was assisted by Urdu interpreters at the hearings before the Board and the Judge.  It is well-established that a non-refoulement claimant is not entitled to free legal representation or language assistance at all stages of the assessment of his non-refoulement claim.  We also note that the Form 86 and the supporting affirmation filed in the court below, as well as his Notice of Appeal and written submissions filed with this Court are all written in English.  This indicates that the Applicant is either conversant with English, or has access to language assistance as needed.  Further, the Applicant has failed to show that he was inhibited from advancing any particular point or ground before the Board or the Judge by reason of the lack of legal or language assistance.

11.  The other complaints raised by the Applicant are all general assertions without particulars, and are directed at the decisions of the Director and the Board. They do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision.

12.  The Applicant has failed to raise any viable ground of appeal against the Order. 

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

[1] See §§30 and 32(ix) of the Board’s Decision.