MOHAMMAD ZAHID QURESHI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 164/2026, [2026] HKCA 957

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 815

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 164 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 221 OF 2022)

____________

____________

_________________

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) Sabrina Ho (“Judge”) on 10 February 2026 dismissing the applicant’s 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 6 April 2022.  In that decision, the Board upheld the decisions of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 30 August 2013 and 27 February 2018 rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

Background

2.  The applicant claims his nationality to be Azad Kashmir Pakistani.  The Board considered that the semi-autonomous region of Azad Jammu and Kashmir (“AJK”) remained under the control of the central government of Pakistan, so it found the applicant to be a national of Pakistan.  The applicant’s claim was made on the basis that if he returned to AJK within Pakistan, he would be harmed or killed by the Pakistan’s Secret Agency (Inter-Services Intelligence Agency) (“ISI”) due to his political activities.  The details of the applicant’s background, the basis of his claim and arguments advanced before the Board as well as the Board’s reasons for rejecting his appeal are all set out in the Board’s decision: see [4] of the Form CALL-1.  The Judge has set out the grounds advanced by the applicant in support of the application and her reasons for refusal of the application: see [5] – [10] of the Form CALL-1.

Appeal to this Court

3.  On 24 February 2026, the applicant filed his Notice of Appeal against the Judge’s decision.  His stated ground of appeal was simply that the court disregarded his dangerous situation.

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 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 objectively there was no real risk of harm upon refoulement as alleged because, though the Board found the applicant essentially to be a credible witness on a balance of probabilities, it did have reservations about certain aspects of the applicant’s claims and evidence with respect to both past events and future risk.  In particular, the Board did not accept that the police or ISI had any ongoing adverse interest in the applicant, or that the applicant had more than a low level of commitment to engaging in his previous political activities.  These are findings of fact open to the Board based on the evidence it received and for the reasons it gave in a very detailed 63-page written decision.  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.