AYAZ AAMIR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 155/2026, [2026] HKCA 948

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 628

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 155 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2478 OF 2020)

____________

____________

_________________

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) Vincent Lung (“Judge”) on 20 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 5 November 2020.  In that decision, the Board upheld the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 20 March 2018 rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

Background

2.  The applicant is a national of Pakistan born in 1993 and his claim was made on the basis that if he returned to Pakistan, his paternal uncle would harm or kill him due to a land dispute.  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 his reasons for refusing the application: see [8] – [12] 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 grounds of appeal were, essentially, that he disagreed with the decision, that he got married in Hong Kong and is in the course of applying for a dependant visa, that his life was still in danger if refouled, and that he does not think his case was determined fairly.

4.  The applicant has lodged skeleton arguments in which he stated that the decisions of the Director and the Board were unreasonable and unfair, that he has human rights, that the decisions represented quick disposals of non-refoulement cases, that the Director failed to give weight to the presence of state acquiescence, that the Board placed too much reliance on country of origin information rather than the applicant’s personal background and experience, and that the Board made its decision based on findings that ought to have led to the appeal/petition being allowed.

5.  At the hearing, the applicant stated that he got married here and was waiting for his dependant visa.

Discussion

6.  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.

7.  In the present case, the Board found that, on a balance of probabilities, the applicant’s account of events is credible.  The Board proceeded to consider but found that there was no real risk of harm upon refoulement as alleged, because the ill-treatment the applicant had received did not meet a minimum level of severity; it was merely a private land dispute between the applicant and his uncle without state involvement; reasonable state protection would be available; and internal relocation to Karachi and Lahore would be viable options for the applicant.  These are findings of fact open to the Board based on the evidence it received and for the reasons it gave. The applicant has failed to show any reasonably arguable public law error in relation to the Board’s decision. As for the ground advanced relating to human rights, it consists of a mere general and bald assertion without any particulars related to the facts of his case.  It does not constitute a viable ground of appeal: see Re Salim Ahmed [2020] HKCA 244 at [20].

8.  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.

9.  The applicant’s appeal is accordingly dismissed.

10.  This decision concerns of course only the applicant’s claim for non-refoulement protection, and does not in any way deal with his application to the Director for permission to stay in Hong Kong as the spouse of a Hong Kong permanent resident.