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

CACV 391/2025, [2026] HKCA 639

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 2120

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 391 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 139 OF 2020)

________________________

________________________

________________________

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 (Non-refoulement Claims)  Martin Wong (“Judge”)  dated 3 June 2025 (“Order”)  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 3 January 2020 (“Board’s Decision”).

Background

2.  The Applicant is a national of Pakistan.  On 7 November 2014, the Applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by his uncle with whom the Applicant has a land dispute[1].  The Applicant’s claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“Director”)  on 20 June 2018, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 3 January 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 3 June 2025[2]. 

3.  The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 3 June 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 12 June 2025, the Applicant states the following :

“In Judicial review court doesn’t provide a further avenue of appeal. Therefore I would like to appeal against the decision and required an oral hearing again to express my case again. I would like to request to review my case again as the threat to life is persistant and it is still not safe to go back.” (sic)

5.  In the written submissions filed on 23 March 2026, apart from reiterating his non-refoulement claim, the Applicant essentially argues that :

(1)  The Board erred in approaching the Applicant’s “personal risk” by placing too much weight on the absence of past injury and in failing to evaluate the seriousness of threats and risks to the Applicant upon return to his home country[3].

(2)  The Board erred in not considering “internal relocation” and the issues in relation to it based on its findings that the Applicant had failed to establish a real risk of persecution in his home area[4].

6.  At the hearing of this appeal, the Applicant said that he has nothing further to add.

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

10.  Nevertheless, it should be pointed out that when the primary facts upon which the alleged risk of harm to the Applicant was based were not accepted by the Board[5], the issues of state protection and internal relocation do not arise and it is not strictly necessary for the Board to assess these issues.  Therefore, the submissions about the Board’s failure to assess the availability of internal relocation cannot assist the Applicant’s case[6].

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 with no order as to costs.