ALI AKHTAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CACV 340/2026, [2026] HKCA 1015

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 1762

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 340 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 450 OF 2021)

____________________

____________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

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 Michael Wong (“Judge”) dated 25 March 2026 (“Order”) refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dated 18 February 2021 (“Board’s Decision”).

Background

2.  The Applicant is a national of Pakistan.  On 15 May 2019, the Applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by a person named Shenshah, who was alleged to be a Taliban commander in Swat City, as well as the Swat Taliban people under Shenshah’s command.  The Applicant’s claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“Director”) on 9 December 2019, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 18 February 2021.  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 Form CALL-1 dated 25 March 2026, [2]. 

3.  The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 25 March 2026.  Details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can be found in the Form CALL-1, [15] to [32]. 

Grounds of Appeal

4.  In the Notice of Appeal filed on 1 April 2026, the Applicant stated the following that :

“I am Disagree with The decision Maker authorities. The decision Make by The director of [Immigration], as well as The decision Make by The Adjudicator of The Torture Claims Appeal Board. These are not proper investigation in my case. So I do not Think my case determined Fairly. Sir my Life Have still [Threatening] in my Home country if I go Back my Home country Then my Life no more please Grant my case For safety OF my Life.”

5.  The Applicant failed to comply with the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals to lodge written submissions in support of the appeal on or before 19 May 2026.  Accordingly, the Applicant is deemed to have waived the right to have an oral hearing of this appeal and elected to have this appeal disposed of on paper.  Having considered the documents before us, we consider that it is appropriate to deal with the Applicant’s appeal on paper without an oral hearing.

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

9.  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. 

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