AHMED SHABBIR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 904/2025, [2026] HKCA 201

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 4379

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 904 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2179 OF 2020)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon G Lam JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

Introduction

1.  This is an appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims)  Philips Wong (“Judge”)  on 6 October 2025 dismissing the application for leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/adjudicator of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”)  dated 22 October 2020.  In that decision, the Board upheld the further decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”)  dated 1 June 2017 rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

Background

2.  The applicant is a national of Pakistan born in 1970 and his claim was made on the basis that if he returned to Pakistan, a group of Shia followers would harm or kill him because he was a Sunni Muslim and he had been arbitrarily set as their target.  Details of the applicant’s background, the basis of his claim and the arguments advanced before the Board as well as the Board’s reasons for rejecting his appeal have all been set out in the two Board’s decisions: see [4] of the Form CALL-1.  The Judge has set out the grounds advanced by the applicant in support of the application for leave to apply for judicial review and his reasons for refusing leave: see [5] – [10] of the Form CALL-1.  We shall not repeat them here.

Appeal to this Court

3.  On 20 October 2025, the applicant filed his Notice of Appeal against the Judge’s decision.  His stated grounds of appeal were, essentially, that the Director and the Board had not given weight to the gravity of his circumstances and that he should be given an opportunity to plead his case properly.

4.  As the applicant did not lodge any written submissions, the scheduled hearing of his appeal was vacated pursuant to the directions of the Court.  We shall accordingly determine the appeal on the basis of the available documents and materials.

Discussion

5.  In assessing the merits of the appeal, we shall have regard to the legal principles which this Court has adopted in dealing with appeals in non-refoulement cases: see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14]; Re Md Shohel Sheak [2018] HKCA 714 at [13]; and Re Limbu Birkhaman [2019] HKCA 50 at [11].  In particular, the role of the Court in a judicial review is not to provide a further avenue of appeal.  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.  In the determination of an appeal against the refusal of leave by the Court of First Instance, 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.  It is not the role of this Court to examine the decision of the Board afresh as if the appeal were a fresh application for judicial review.

6.  In the present case, the Board found that there was no real risk of harm upon refoulement as alleged, because the applicant’s injury did not attain the minimum level of severity and the Board did not accept that the applicant was a target of the Shia people or that his attackers were still interested in him more than 9 years later (at that time).  In any event, the Board found that reasonable state protection was available to the applicant.  These are findings of fact open to the Board based on the evidence it received and for the reasons it gave. The applicant has failed to show any reasonably arguable public law error in relation to the Board’s decision.

7.  Equally, the applicant has not been able to demonstrate any error in the decision of the Judge or advance any viable ground of appeal against the Judge’s decision.  We are not satisfied that there is any error in the Judge’s decision.

8.  The applicant’s appeal is accordingly dismissed.