SAGHIR FAISAL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 637/2025, [2026] HKCA 354

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 3042

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 637 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 3212 OF 2019)

________________________

BETWEEN

_____________________

_____________________

JUDGMENT

_____________________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung (“the Judge”) dated 14 August 2025 (“the Order”) refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 17 October 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The applicant is a national of Pakistan. On 10 June 2016, the applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by a man named Zulfiquar due to a political dispute with him.[1] The applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 22 August 2018, and his appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 17 October 2019. 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 14 August 2025.[2]

3.  The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 14 August 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 his Notice of Appeal dated on 21 August 2025, the applicant principally complains of an absence of language and legal assistance being provided to him. The applicant also complained that the Court did not adequately scrutinize the assumption of the Director and the Board that he could easily relocate within Pakistan, and that he “was not called for a hearing by this Court” and the decision was issued without giving him “the opportunity to be heard”.

5.  In the 6-page written submissions lodged on 15 January 2026, apart from reiterating the complaints of an absence of language and legal assistance being provided to him, the applicant essentially argues that the Judge did not assess whether there were arguable public law errors in the Board’s findings in relation to the applicant’s credibility, the alleged inconsistencies and memory gaps, the assessment and application of country of origin information, and the viability of internal relocation.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

6.  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)).

7.  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 & DISPOSITION

8.  We are unpersuaded by the applicant’s complaint of a lack of legal representation, as it does not follow that the high standards of fairness applicable require that a non-refoulement protection claimant be absolutely entitled to legal representation at all stages of the screening process or the legal proceedings ensuing therefrom. See Re Zunariyah [2018] HKCA 14, Re Zahid Abbas [2018] HKCA 15, Re Tariq Farhan [2018] HKCA 17, Re Lopchan Subash [2018] HKCA 37 and Re Ahmed Syed Rafiq [2018] HKCA 178.

9.  The applicant’s complaint of prejudice by reason of his lack of proficiency in English is also unfounded and of little or no merit. We note that he was able to, either by himself or with assistance from others, lodge with the court applications written in comprehensible English.

10.  There is also no substance in the applicant’s complaint regarding not being called for hearing, as the applicant attended a hearing in open court where he had the opportunity to present his case for the leave application to the Judge but he raised no valid ground to challenge the Board’s findings.

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

12.  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.

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