MEHMOOD TARIQ v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 638 /2025, [2026] HKCA 563

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 3486

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 638 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1123 OF 2020)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Kwan VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

Background

1.  On 12 August 2025, Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims)  Philips Wong refused to grant leave for the applicant to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”)  concerning his non-refoulement claim[1]. The applicant filed a Notice of Appeal against the said decision on 21 August 2025.

2.  The applicant is a national of Pakistan.  He entered Hong Kong illegally on 24 April 2009 and was arrested by the police on the same day.  He lodged his torture claim on 28 April 2009 which was rejected by Director of Immigration (“the Director”)  on 29 October 2013 and the relevant appeal was dismissed by the Board on 12 May 2014.  He lodged a non-refoulement claim on 30 October 2013.  His claim was made on the basis that he would be harmed or killed if he returns to Pakistan as he had an affair with a married woman. 

3.  By a Notice of Decision dated 9 May 2018, the Director rejected the applicant’s non-refoulement claim on all applicable grounds including BOR 2 risk[2], BOR 3 risk[3] and persecution risk[4] but except torture risk[5], as his torture claim had already been rejected and would not be reviewed.

4.  His appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 25 May 2020[6]. The Board did not accept that the applicant had an affair with a married woman because of significant inconsistencies in his evidence. The Board also did not accept that he was assaulted or threatened as alleged and was not satisfied that he would face the risks as claimed.

The judge’s decision

5.  The applicant filed a Form 86 and an affirmation on 8 June 2020 to seek leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Board.  He did not put forward any grounds for his intended challenge against the Board’s decision.  He attended the hearing before DHCJ Philips Wong on 21 July 2025.  The leave application was dismissed on 12 August 2025.

Grounds of appeal

6.  The applicant submitted a written consent for this appeal to be disposed of on paper without an oral hearing.  He stated the following grounds of appeal in his written submissions:

(1)  The Director failed to consider the factors in local context and did not understand the intricacies of the situation in his country;

(2)  The police and the Country of Origin Information (“COI”)  system in Pakistan have been well known for corruption and ineffectiveness.  The government has failed to protect individuals from violence and other human rights abuses.  It has failed to ensure legal redress after violations have occurred.  In addition, Pakistan continues to impose death penalty on persons convicted of crimes;

(3)  The COI stated by the Board was based on the knowledge from their own state report without understanding the cultural context in Pakistan.  Security forces remained unaccountable for human rights violation and exercised disproportionate political influences over civilian authorities.  The legislature passed a constitutional amendment reinstating secret military courts to try terrorism suspects.  Security forces were implicated in enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings throughout the country;

(4)  In a Muslim country that is still heavily communal, it is very easy to detect another person should one person determine to track down another. And if that person remains in the Muslim and communal country, it is very likely that he would be killed.

Analysis and disposition

7.  The general principles regarding an appeal in a non-refoulement case have been set out comprehensively by the Court of Appeal in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at §14.

8.  In this appeal, the applicant only stated his complaints against the Director and the Board but did not adduce any evidence which can refute the findings of the Board.  He did not put forward any ground against the judge’s decision.  He failed to demonstrate that the judge had made errors of law or failed to take account of relevant matters already placed before the court or was otherwise plainly wrong.

9.  For the above reasons, the appeal is devoid of merit and is dismissed accordingly.