ASIF UBAID v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 188/2026, [2026] HKCA 789

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 748

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 188 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1202 OF 2025)

____________________

________________

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 K.W. Lung (“Judge”) dated 16 February 2026 (“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 28 February 2025 (“Board’s Decision”).

Background

2.  The Applicant is a national of Pakistan. On 13 November 2023, the Applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by the members of the Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) because he was a supporter of its rival party, the Pakistan Teherrk-e-Insaf, and he refused to quit his political party to join them. The Applicant’s claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“Director”) on 2 January 2025, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 28 February 2025. 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 16 February 2026[1].

3.  The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 16 February 2026. 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 2 March 2026, the Applicant states the following :

“1- The decisions are unlawful.

2- The Decisions failed to take into account many things and [issues].

3- I have life’s danger in my home country Indonesia, so why, i can’t go back to my Home Country. Please help me to save my life.” (sic)

5.  In the skeleton arguments filed on 8 April 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 appreciate state acquiescence in the Applicant’s case.

(2)  The Applicant was tortured by the police, state law enforcement agencies and those in the high positions in the 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 (ie, lack of state protection) before making his decision.

(5)  The Director listed relevant country of origin information supporting the fact that the police in Pakistan would not be able to protect the Applicant, and failed to consider the same 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 making its decision.

(10)  The Applicant has no or limited options at his disposal to bring evidence before the Board when he was under the custody of the Immigration Department in Hong Kong.

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

(12)  The Director violated the laws in relation to the Applicant’s claim for non-refoulement under torture risk, BOR 2 risk, BOR 3 risk and persecution risk.

6.  At the hearing of this appeal, the Applicant had nothing further to add.

Legal Principle

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 skeleton arguments are general allegations without particulars. They do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the Order.

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.