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

CACV 880/2025, [2026] HKCA 536

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 4549

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 880 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1033 OF 2020)

________________________

_____________________

________________

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) Lewis Law (“the Judge”) dated 8 October 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 13 May 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The Applicant is a national of Pakistan. On 28 March 2019, the Applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be targeted for killing to set an example to others because he was a Shia Muslim from the Bhatti Rajpoot tribe and constantly faced threats from the Sunnis. As he grew older, he began to respond to the threats from the Sunnis and caught the attention of a member of a terrorist organization. The Applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 28 June 2019, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 13 May 2020. 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 8 October 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 14 October 2025, the Applicant stated that:

“I am disagree with The decision Maker authorities. This decision same like Torture appeal Board and director of Immegration. They not give me Justice. Sir our country police not help us Then we come here For protection of our life. But here if I not stay in Hong Kong Then my country my life is end. I do not Think my claim determined Fairly.”

5.  In the skeleton argument filed on 20 February 2026, the Applicant contested the Director and the Board’s decisions, without substantiating any argument against the Judge’s decision.

6.  The appeal was heard on 24 March 2026. The Applicant attended the hearing in person with the assistance of an Urdu interpreter and added that the situation in his home country is bad. The Shia community is being targeted.

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 and skeleton argument are all bare allegations without particulars. 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.