ABDEL HAK NAAZ v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 252/2026, [2026] HKCA 1109

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 1109

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 252 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 567 OF 2021)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Winnie Tsui J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

Introduction

1.  This is an appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims)  Jeffrey Chau (“Judge”)  on 6 March 2026 refusing to grant an extension of time for the applicant to file the application for leave to apply for judicial review and 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 October 2020.  In that decision, the Board upheld the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”)  dated 26 November 2018 rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

Background

2.  The applicant is a national of Pakistan born in 1967 and his claim was made on the basis that if he returned to Pakistan, the business partner (Adnan Butt)  of his girlfriend (Tasleem Bibi)  would harm or kill him due to his lies to Tasleem.  According to immigration records, the applicant had entered and exited Hong Kong on numerous occasions under multiple identities over the years and had been repatriated to Pakistan four times since 1993.  The applicant last entered Hong Kong using a false travel document in 2005.  Further 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 [5] 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 refusal of the application: see [10] – [20] of the Form CALL-1. 

Appeal to this Court

3.  On 16 March 2026, the applicant filed his Notice of Appeal against the Judge’s decision.  His stated grounds of appeal were, essentially, that he did not agree with the decision, that the authorities treated the cases of non-refoulement claimants on the basis of quick disposal, that his claim was not determined fairly, and that his life was still being threatened in his home country.

4.  The applicant has lodged skeleton arguments in which he stated that his Form 86 filed on 22 April 2021 was not 3 months late as he acted in good faith on the instructions of an immigration officer; that the applicant missed hearings because the notices were sent to the wrong address; and that the Judge erred by focusing on his past deportation orders and identity issues, when the appeal should focus on current human rights, family protection and humanitarian grounds instead.  The applicant purports to submit evidence that were not received by the court at the time of lodging of the skeleton arguments, including a receipt dated 22 April 2021 for filing the Form 86, an appeal fee receipt, his two children’s birth certificates and Hong Kong identity documents, letters from his late mother and wife, an affidavit from his mother confirming life threats in Pakistan, letter from a neighbour confirming attacks and the family’s suffering in Pakistan, and a clarification letter proving the address error was caused by administrative issues.  He further stated that he has lived in Hong Kong for over 23 years with a clean record, that his two sons were born and raised in Hong Kong, that he is 60 years old and unable to work, and that returning to Pakistan would expose the family to grave risks and loss of stability due to ongoing life threats. 

5.  At the hearing, the applicant claimed that he was not allowed to submit the aforementioned documents at the time of lodging his skeleton arguments.  As the applicant has brought those documents that he intended to submit with his skeleton arguments to the hearing, this court has allowed the applicant to submit the set of documents to be read by the court on a provisional basis. The set of documents consists of a copy of the Form 86; letters purporting to explain about his reason for delay, family tragedy, or address error respectively; photographs of his late son, his mother’s grave and his family; affidavit of his mother about the life threats in Pakistan; medical records; and copy of identification documents of his wife and two children. 

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 there was no real risk of harm upon refoulement as alleged, because it found that the applicant was not a credible witness and that his claims were neither credible nor plausible.  Even if the Board had accepted that the applicant’s relationship with Tasleem existed, the Board found that it was an entirely local matter without state involvement, and that, if required, it would adopt the reasoning and findings of the Director in relation to the issue of state protection.  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.  

8.  The applicant emphasized that the Form 86 was filed on 22 April 2021 and “not late” as stated by the Judge; however, the deadline to file the Form 86 was 3 months from the date of the Board’s decision made on 5 October 2020 (which would have been 5 January 2021), so the filing on 22 April 2021 was, in fact, late.  As for the applicant’s complaint about a missing hearing as a result of notifications sent to an incorrect address, according to the court’s record, it appears that the notice of hearing sent by the lower court was mailed to the same address as stated by the applicant and it was not returned undelivered by the Hong Kong Post. The same address was in fact confirmed by the applicant to be his address at the appeal hearing.  In any event, the Judge had in fact considered the merits of the applicant’s claim at [16] to [18] of the Form CALL-1, in spite of the applicant’s delay.  Lastly, the applicant’s argument that the Judge only focused on the applicant’s deportation records is misconceived.  On the contrary, the Judge had clearly considered and analyzed the applicant’s grounds and the Board’s reasoning in its decision.  As for the ground advanced relating to human rights and on a humanitarian basis, it consists of a mere general and bald assertion regarding the decision of the Judge without any particulars.  It does not constitute a viable ground of appeal: see Re Salim Ahmed[2020] HKCA 244 at [20]. 

9.  Furthermore, the applicant advances the ground that his two sons are born and raised in Hong Kong without knowing another place as home.  However, the applicant’s children are not parties to this appeal, and their circumstances are irrelevant to the applicant’s present appeal.  

10.  As for the documents submitted by the applicant at the hearing, some of the documents merely repeat, by way of letter, what has already been submitted to the court.  These documents and the photographs do not lend support to any viable grounds in the applicant’s present appeal.  We do not admit those documents as new evidence for the purpose of the appeal. 

11.  As such, 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.

12.  The applicant’s appeal is accordingly dismissed.