BASHARAT ADNAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 428/2025, [2026] HKCA 638

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 2494

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 428 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 126 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 17 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 9 January 2020 (“Board’s Decision”).

Background

2.  The Applicant is a national of Pakistan.  On 21 July 2019, the Applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim.  The Applicant’s claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“Director”)  on 20 September 2019, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 9 January 2020.  At the hearing before the Judge, there was an application to the Immigration Department dated 10 March 2025 made by the Applicant for his return to Pakistan.  In response to the Judge, the Applicant confirmed that he had nothing to add.  Given the absence of indication that the return application was not made voluntarily, the Judge dismissed the Applicant’s leave application on 17 June 2025.  Details of the Judge’s reasons for dismissing the leave application can be found in the CALL-1 Form dated 17 June 2025.

Grounds of Appeal

3.  In the Notice of Appeal filed on 23 June 2025, the Applicant states the following :

“THE HIGH COURT DID NOT FIND ANY ERROR OF PROCEDING BUT I CAN SHOW MANY ERROR. GIVE ME A CHANCE TO SHOW THE ERROR OF THE ADJUDICATOR. MY APPLY SOULD NOT BE REFUSED.” (sic)

4.  In the written submissions filed on 13 March 2026, apart from reiterating the factual background and chronology of events in relation to his non-refoulement claim as well as reciting a case and making submissions on the general principles of law relating to non-refoulement claims, the Applicant essentially argues that :

(1)  The Director failed to properly evaluate state acquiescence in the Applicant’s case.

(2)  The Applicant was tortured by the police, state law enforcement agencies and those in high political circles.

(3)  The state and its public officials failed to provide reasonable protection to its citizens.

(4)  The Director failed to take into account such argument (i.e. lack of state protection)  before making his decision.

(5)  The Director failed to consider relevant country of origin information which supported the Applicant’s case that the police in Pakistan would not be able to protect him, and ruled otherwise.

(6)  The Director misconstrued relevant country of origin information to suit his pre-conceived conclusion.

(7)  Corruption and incompetency of the administration in Pakistan is still a serious problem.

(8)  The Director failed to attain a high standard of fairness as required by the Wednesbury test.

(9)  The Board failed to make sufficient enquiry before finalizing its decision.

(10)  The Applicant has no or limited options at his disposal in bringing evidence before the Board, especially when he was under the custody of the Immigration Department.

(11)  The Board failed to give sufficient chance to the Applicant to arrange relevant evidence.

(12)  The Director violated the laws in relation to non-refoulement protection in the Applicant’s case.

5.  At the hearing of this appeal, the Applicant said that his enemy in Pakistan is very strong because he is affiliated with a strong party.

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 and Disposition

8.  In this case, the return application was a handwritten letter issued by the Applicant and he had confirmed at the hearing below that he had nothing to add[1].  Further, there was no indication that the Applicant made the return application other than out of his own volition[2].  In the circumstances, the Applicant’s leave application was rightly dismissed by the Judge. 

9.  All the matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal and written submissions are general allegations without particulars. They do not address the reason why the leave application was dismissed, nor constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision.  In any case, these general allegations do not justify granting leave to apply for judicial review against the Board’s Decision.

10.  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. 

11.  The Applicant’s appeal has no merit, and is dismissed with no order as to costs.