Case Detail

MALIK MUHAMMAD SAQIB v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Related cases with same parties

CACV100/2026SINGH NARINDER PAL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV10/2022ROBILLOS ADOLFO DE LA CRUZ v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV103/2021LUU THI VAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD /NON REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV103/2023ALMAS KHAWAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV103/2025COLLINS OBI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV104/2019DHALI JONY v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV104/2023VU THI NGOC MY v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV105/2021DINH THI VAN 對 TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITON OFFICE
CACV107/2023NGUYEN THI THUY v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV107/2025AHMAD AQEEL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV1081/2025HOANG VAN BINH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV110/2021AYUB MUHAMMAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV11/2023RUPASINGHA ARACHCHIGE SHIROMA THARANGANI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV112/2025NONG THI HA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV113/2022SITI MULDIYATI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV1151/2025ARSHDEEP SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV115/2022GALLEGO VALDES AUGUSTO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV115/2024QUIRANTE JACKIELON DE GUZMAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV115/2025DINH KHAC KIEN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV1153/2025MEGA PUSPITA SARI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Files (2)

[2026] HKCA 595-EN-2026-04-09

MALIK MUHAMMAD SAQIB v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HTML content

CACV 262/2025, [2026] HKCA 595

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 1588

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 262 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 3789 OF 2019)

____________________

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

____________________

Before:

Hon Anthony Chan JA and H. Au-Yeung J in Court

Date of Written Submissions:	24 February 2026
Date of Judgment:	9 April 2026

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

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

1. On 9 February 2026, this Court (Anthony Chan JA and H. Au-Yeung J) handed down a Judgment (“Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Philips Wong given on 22 April 2025 refusing leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review. The Applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dismissing his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting his non‑refoulement claim.

2. The facts and issues in the Applicant’s appeal, as well as the Court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in the Judgment[1]. We will not repeat them here.

3. The Applicant subsequently applied, by a Notice of Motion dated 11 February 2026, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant stated that:

“I would like to inform to Court of Final Appeal. There were some error in law maker authorities. They were totally relied on some web news which officially not recognised. Decision maker not give me justice. I don’t think my claim determined fairly.”

4. In his written submission lodged on 24 February 2026, the Applicant reiterated the ground in the Notice of Motion. He further submits that:

(1)     There was no legal and language assistance provided to him;
(2)     The Board was in breach of procedural fairness;
(3)     The authorities acted discriminatorily towards him; and
(4)     The decision makers did not properly investigate his case.

5. Having considered the Applicant’s Notice of Motion and written submission, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this type on paper.

6. The matters stated by the Applicant do not constitute proper grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The Applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484. Nor is any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised.

7. The Notice of Motion fails to identify any error in the Judgment and the matters stated therein raise no ground that is reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.

8. Also, we do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

9. For these reasons, the Notice of Motion is dismissed with no order as to costs.

( Anthony Chan )
Justice of Appeal

( Herbert Au-Yeung )
Judge of the Court of
First Instance

The Applicant acting in person

[1] See [2026] HKCA 36.

CACV 262/2025, [2026] HKCA 36

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 1588

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 262 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 3789 OF 2019)

________________________

BETWEEN

	MALIK MUHAMMAD SAQIB	Applicant
	and
	TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE	Putative Respondent
	and
	DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION	Putative Interested Party

________________________

Before:

Hon Anthony Chan JA and H. Au-Yeung J in Court

Date of Hearing:	8 January 2026
Date of Judgment:	9 February 2026

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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) Philips Wong (“Judge”) dated 22 April 2025 by which his application for leave to apply for judicial review (“Leave Application”) against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) dated 18 December 2019 (“Board’s Decision”) was dismissed. By that decision, the Board upheld the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) to reject the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

2. The Applicant did not appear at the hearing of his appeal.

3. 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 at footnote 1 of the CALL-1 Form. In gist, the Applicant claims that he would be killed by his relatives due to a land dispute if he returns to his country.

4. In [5] to [13] of the CALL-1 Form, the Judge gave detailed reasons for refusing the Leave Application.

5. By a Notice of Appeal filed on 2 May 2025, the Applicant appeals against the Judge’s decision. The Applicant contends that the decisions by the Director and the Board are unfair.

6. In his skeleton arguments dated 10 December 2025, the Applicant submits that: (a) the Director failed to appreciate the issue of state acquiescence; (b) the Board placed too much reliance on Country of Origin Information (“COI”) and did not consider the Applicant’s personal background and experience; and (c) the decisions by the Director and the Board are unreasonable, unfair and irrational.

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, COI, 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 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 respect of the grounds contained in the skeleton arguments, we note that the Board dismissed the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim primarily on the ground that his evidence was not credible (Board’s Decision, [70]) and that he did not face any risk of harm from his family or the Pakistani government. In the circumstances, there was no need for the Board to consider the COI or the Applicant’s background in detail and the issue of state acquiescence did not arise. There is thus no merit in any of the grounds of appeal advanced by the Applicant.

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

(Anthony Chan)	(Herbert Au-Yeung)
Justice of Appeal	Judge of the Court of First Instance

The Applicant was not represented and did not appear