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

CACV 633/2025, [2026] HKCA 164

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 3578

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 633 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 539 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 Michael Wong (“the Judge”) dated 12 August 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 4 December 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”).

Background

2.  The applicant is a national of Pakistan. On 3 July 2013, the applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he feared his life would be in danger from his political opponents, namely people from the Pakistan People’s Party, as he was a street counsellor of the Pakistan Muslim League (“PML”), and he made a new claim to the Board that he feared harm from the ruling party, the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf (“PTI”), as PTI was also an opposition party to PML.[1] The applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 12 December 2018, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 4 December 2019. 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, the hyperlink to which can be found in the CALL-1 Form dated 12 August 2025.[2]

3.  The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 12 August 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 21 August 2025, the applicant states the following that:

“I WANT TO APPEAL AGAINST MY ORDER BECAUSE I AM NOT SATISFIED WITH MY ORDER.”

5.  In the skeleton arguments lodged on 19 December 2025, the applicant essentially argues that:

(1)  The Director and the Board wrongly assessed the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

(2)  The applicant’s right to life is protected under the Basic Law and the Bill of Rights.

(3)  The Director failed to give sufficient weight to state acquiescence.

(4)  The Board placed too much reliance on country of origin information and failed to take into account the applicant’s personal background and experience.

(5)  The Director failed to give enough weight to country of origin information that the police in the applicant’s country would not be able to protect before reaching his decision.

(6)  The Board dismissed the applicant’s appeal based on the findings which the Board ought to allow the appeal.

6.  At the hearing before us, the applicant said that he had recently tried to contact his family members but could only contact his uncle. His uncle told him that his life was still in danger and advised him not to return home. His uncle himself had left home and his family members had left too. The applicant further asserted that his brother, who is in Hong Kong, also received threat to his life by phone. These are all bare allegation without any evidence in support. The applicant asked for time to put in the evidence but he has already been given ample time to do so. His request is no more than a delaying tactics, which must be firmly rejected.

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 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: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022.

Discussion & disposition

9.  The matters raised in the applicant’s Notice of Appeal are all general allegations without particulars whereas the complaints in the skeleton arguments are directed at the Director and/or the Board. They do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision.

10.  The applicant has failed to identify or show 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.