ANIS UR REHMAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 324/2026, [2026] HKCA 1018

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 1399

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 324OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 211 OF 2022)

____________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

Hon Anthony Chan JA (giving the Judgment of the Court) :

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Sabrina Ho (“Judge”) dated 25 March 2026 dismissing his application for leave to apply for judicial review (“Leave Application”) against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) dated 15 March 2022 (“Board’s Decision”) by which the Board upheld the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

2.  The Applicant is a national of Pakistan.  The basis of his non-refoulement claim had been set out in detail in the Board’s Decision, which may be viewed online via the hyperlink contained in the Form CALL-1 dated 25 March 2026, [5].  In gist, the Applicant claims that if he returns to his home country, he will be harmed or killed by members of the Muttahida Qaumi Movement because he refused their demand for protection money.

3.  In [6] to [10] of the Form CALL-1, the Judge gave detailed reasons for refusing the Leave Application.

4.  By a Notice of Appeal filed on 30 March 2026, the Applicant appeals against the Judge’s decision.  The Applicant contends that :

“I am not agree with the decision Maker authorities. decision Maker give me totally unfair decision like Torture Claims Appeal Board and director of Immigration. They are not Properly investigation in my case. decision Maker not give me justice. Sir my life have still [Threatening] in my Home country. If I go back to my country then my life no more. Please Grant my case as a human Rights.”

5.  The Applicant lodged his skeleton argument on 19 May 2026. In that document, he reiterated his claim that his life would be at risk if refouled and that he would be tortured or killed by his enemies.  His arguments may be summarized as follows :

(a)     the Judge failed to apply the principles of rationality, procedural fairness and high standard of fairness, and also failed to analyse his claims properly;

(b)     the Board failed to give him sufficient chance to arrange for relevant evidence and failed to evaluate whether a consistent pattern of gross and mass violation of human rights exists in his home country;

(c)     the Board relied on source of news which was not officially recognised or was simply hearsay;

(d)     the Board failed to analyse and assess the issue of state protection in his home country.

6.  At the hearing of this appeal, the Applicant said that he needs 6 months to negotiate with his enemy via an agent.  He was told by the agent that after negotiation he can continue his business in Pakistan within 2 to 3 months.  The Applicant will leave Hong Kong when his business restarts.  He asks to be allowed to stay here for some more time.

7.  The general approach of this Court in dealing with appeals in non-refoulement cases has been set out in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14].  In particular, in an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in non-refoulement cases, this Court 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.  This Court’s role is not to examine the Board’s decision afresh as if it is a fresh application for judicial review (see Nupur Mst at [14(6)]).

8.  Further, 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 Director and the Board. The Court will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there is an error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022 at [13].

9.  In the present case, the Judge found no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision[1].  In our view, the matters set out in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal and skeleton argument are bare assertions unsupported by proper particulars.  They do not constitute any viable grounds of appeal.  We see no basis to interfere with the Judge’s decision.

10.  As regards the matters raised at the hearing, we regret to say that they are not relevant for the purpose of this appeal. 

11.  In the premises, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.

[1] Form CALL-1, [9].