ALI ZULFIQAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 333/2025, [2026] HKCA 393

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 2030

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 333 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 3580 OF 2019)

________________________

_____________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of DHCJ (Non-refoulement Claims) Teresa Wu (“the Judge”) dated 15 May 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 22 November 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The Applicant is a national of Pakistan. The Applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be killed by reason of a land dispute and money extortion. The Applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 27 June 2018, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 22 November 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.

3.  The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 15 May 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 the Notice of Appeal filed on 26 May 2025, the Applicant states the following:

“THE HIGH COURT DID NOT CONSIDER MY J.R. ADJUDICATOR DID NOT GIVE ME CORRECT DECISION. HIS DECISION IS FULL OF WRONG. PLEASE GRANT MY LEAVE.”

5.  In the 3-page skeleton arguments filed on 22 January 2026, apart from reiterating his non-refoulement claim, the Applicant essentially disputes the Board’s decision, rather than the Order.

6.  The appeal was heard on 27 February 2026. The Applicant attended the hearing with the assistance of an Urdu interpreter and added that his enemy would kill him.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

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 below will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there are errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022.

DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION

9.  The matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal are merely bare allegations without particulars whereas the complaints in the skeleton arguments are directed at the Board, not the Judge. They do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision.

10.  The Applicant has failed to identify or substantiate 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.