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

CACV 740/2025, [2026] HKCA 421

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 4039

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 740 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 675 OF 2020)

__________________________

__________________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) YW Hew (“the Judge”) dated 10 September 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 March 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”) whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 27 April 2018 (“the Director’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The applicant is a national of Pakistan. He lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Immigration Department on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by his creditor, Major Tahir.  The applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director, and his appeal against it was rejected by the Board.  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 and details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can be found in the Form CALL-1.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

4.  By a notice of appeal filed on 15 September 2025, the applicant sought to appeal the Judge’s decision to this court.  For the grounds of appeal, the applicant stated that “I would like to tell that still I have problem in my country if I go my life become unsertain.  In the otherhand my peaceful life in hong kong with my wife. She is hong kong citizen and born in hong kong.”, without providing further particulars or elaboration or showing any supporting evidence as to his wife’s residency status. 

5.  In his 5-page written submissions lodged on 28 January 2026, the applicant cited a number of cases and made generic submissions on the general principles of law relating to non-refoulement claims, without advancing any argument against the Judge’s decision as such.

6.  The appeal was heard on 12 March 2026.  The applicant attended the hearing in person with the assistance of a Pushto interpreter and added that he had married a Chinese permanent Hong Kong resident.  He was also undergoing eye treatment in Hong Kong.

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.  In the present case, no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board was detected by the Judge or was pointed out by the applicant apart from the mere assertions as stated in his grounds of appeal and in his written submissions.

10.  As to the assertion in his notice of appeal that the applicant is now married to a Hong Kong resident, this does not detract from the fact that he does not have any right to enter or to remain in Hong Kong.  It is well-established that a family member (who has a right of permanent residence in Hong Kong) of a person (who has no right to remain in Hong Kong) cannot rely on the family member’s own rights under the Bill of Rights or the Basic Law to require the Director to grant a right to remain in Hong Kong to that other person: BI v Director of Immigration [2016] 2 HKLRD 520 at [92(7)]; Re Purisima Aida P [2022] HKCA 637 at [15].  Accordingly, the fact that the applicant has built a family here is not a relevant consideration in assessing his non-refoulement claim.  In any event, the applicant did not substantiate this ground or provide any further information and therefore it has no merit.

11.  It is incumbent on the applicant to point out the Judge’s errors with sufficient particulars.  In our view, the matters set out in the applicant’s notice of appeal and written submissions failed to identify or substantiate any error on the part of the Judge. They do not constitute any viable grounds of appeal and lack substance. We see no basis to interfere with the Judge’s decision. 

12.  For the above reasons, the applicant’s appeal is devoid of merits.  Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.