DIN SHAMAS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 484/2025, [2026] HKCA 637

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 2882

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 484 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 704 OF 2020)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

Introduction

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims)  Lewis Law (“Judge”)  dated 7 July 2025 (“Order”)  refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”)  dated 14 April 2020 (“Board’s Decision”).

Background

2.  The Applicant is a national of Pakistan.  On 29 October 2013, the Applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim[1] on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by a cousin of the Applicant’s father (Mr M), due to a land dispute[2].  The Applicant’s claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“Director”)  on 13 June 2018, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 14 April 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, the hyperlink to which can be found in the CALL-1 Form dated 7 July 2025[3].

3.  The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 7 July 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 11 July 2025, the Applicant states the following :

“I am disagree with the decision maker authorities. The decision made by the Director of Immigration As, well as the decision made by the Adjudicator of Torture Claim Appeal Board. I do not think my claim determined fairly.” (sic)

5.  In the written submissions filed on 12 March 2026, the Applicant essentially argues that :

(1)  The Director and the Board wrongly assessed the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim[4].

(2)  The Applicant’s right to life is protected under the Basic Law and the Bill of Rights[5].

(3)  The Director failed to give sufficient weight to state acquiescence[6].

(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[7].

(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 him, or failed to take such argument into account before reaching his decision[8].

(6)  The Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal based on findings which supported the opposite conclusion[9].

(7)  The Board’s decision to refuse the Applicant’s appeal was unreasonable or irrational[10].

(8)  The Board relied on some web news which were not officially recognised by the authorities[11].

6.  At the hearing of this appeal, the Applicant said that he has nothing to add save that he wants this Court to review his case.

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 and Disposition

9.  All the matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal and written submissions are directed at the decisions of the Director and the Board, and they are general 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 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 with no order as to costs.