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

CACV 571/2025, [2026] HKCA 680

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 2383

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO.571 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 3085 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Anthony Chan JA (giving the Judgment of the Court)  :

Introduction

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung (“Judge”)  dated 30 July 2025 refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”)  dated 27 September 2019 (“Board’s BOR 2 Decision”)  whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”)  dated 9 June 2017 regarding his right to life under Article 2 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights. 

2.  As noted by the Judge at paragraphs [1] to [3] of the judgment dated 30 July 2025 (“Judgment”), the Director had previously assessed and rejected the Applicant’s claim in 2015 under the other applicable grounds, ie, BOR 3 risk, torture risk and persecution risk.  The Applicant’s appeal against that decision of the Director was dismissed by the Board in 2017.  There was no challenge to the Board’s 2017 dismissal. 

Background

3.  The Applicant is a national of the Pakistan.  He lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Immigration Department on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by members of the Pakistan People’s Party and the Muttahida Qaumi Movement because he was a supporter of the Pakistan Muslim League Q.  The Applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director, and his appeals against the Director’s decisions were subsequently rejected by the Board.  Details of the Applicant’s background and his process before the Director and the Board, as well as the Board’s reasons for rejecting the Applicant’s appeal had been summarized paragraphs [1] – [15] of the Judgment.

4.  The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge and details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can be found in the Judgment.

Grounds of Appeal

5.  By a Notice of Appeal filed on 1 August 2025, the Applicant seeks to appeal the Judge’s decision to this Court.  For the grounds of appeal, the applicant states that :

“… the Applicant will face hardship if he is to return back to his home country and that the Torture Claims Appeal Board has significantly relied on source of news which is not officially recognized, or it is simply hearsay. They have also relied on some cases which are outdated considering the dramatic changes. The lack of credible source of information has resulted in them making groundless speculations.”

6.  The appeal was scheduled to be heard on 16 April 2026.  The Applicant has failed to lodge any skeleton argument in support of his appeal in accordance with the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 9 March 2026.  Accordingly, the applicant is deemed to have waived his right to have an oral hearing of the appeal, and elected to have the appeal disposed of on paper.  Having considered the documents before the Court, we are of the view that it is appropriate to deal with this 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 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 and Disposition

9.  The Judge held that the Applicant’s challenge against the Board’s BOR 2 Decision was bound to fail as the Board had already rejected his non-refoulement claim under BOR 3[1].  It should be noted that no additional information was provided by the Applicant to support his BOR 2 claim[2].

10.  The Applicant has not point to any error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board or the Judge.  The matters stated in the Notice of Appeal are bare assertions devoid of particulars.  They lack substance and do not constitute any viable grounds of appeal.  We see no basis to interfere with the Judge’s decision. 

11.  For the above reasons, this appeal is devoid of merits.  We dismiss it accordingly with no order as to costs.