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

CACV 1245/2025, [2026] HKCA 278

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 5995

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 1245 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 708 OF 2021)

________________________

BETWEEN
	ALI USMAN	Applicant
	and
	TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE	Putative Respondent
	and
	DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION	Putative Interested Party

_____________________

Before:

Hon Chow JA and Lisa Wong J in Court

Date of Judgment:

17 March 2026

________________________

JUDGMENT

________________________

Hon Chow 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) Jeffrey Chau (“the Judge”) dated 22 December 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 19 March 2021 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 29 May 2020.

2.  The Applicant alleges that, if refouled to Pakistan, he will be harmed or killed by a member (Asif Arain) (“Asif”) of the Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) and the supporters of Asif because he supported another political party, the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, and he had disputes with the supporters of Asif in connection with an election in 2018[1].  The Applicant’s background, the basis of his claim, the findings of the Board and its reasons for dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the Director’s decision have been set out in detail in the Board’s Decision, and referred to by the Judge in the Judge’s decision (see §4 of the CALL-1 Form).  We do not propose to repeat them here.

3.  The Judge’s reasons for dismissing the Applicant’s leave application are set out at §§5-10 of the CALL-1 Form.  In gist, the Judge held that the Applicant did not provide any or any proper grounds for his intended judicial review.  The Judge also held that there were no errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision.

THIS APPEAL

4.  In his Notice of Appeal filed on 30 December 2025, the Applicant complains that the Judge’s decision was reached unfairly without giving him an opportunity to clarify his case and the situation in his country.

5.  The Applicant has failed to lodge written submissions in support of his appeal in accordance with the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 30 December 2025.  Accordingly, he is deemed to have waived the right to have an oral hearing of his appeal and elected to have his appeal disposed of on paper.  Having considered the documents before us, we consider that it is appropriate to deal with the Applicant’s appeal on paper without an oral hearing.

DISCUSSION

6.  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)).

7.  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 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, at §13.  No such error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board is shown in the present case.

8.  The Applicant’s complaint raised in the Notice of Appeal against the decision of the Judge is vague and general, and does not constitute a valid ground of appeal.  In any event, his complaint is plainly unsustainable.  He was heard by the Judge on 20 November 2025 in his application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision, and he made oral submissions with the assistance of an Urdu interpreter to the Judge at that hearing.

9.  The Applicant’s appeal has no merits, and is dismissed.

  

The Applicant, acting in person

---

[1] See §§6, 9 and 10 of the Board’s Decision.