AHMED NAVEED v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 332/2025, [2026] HKCA 343

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 1996

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 332 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 3573 OF 2019)

________________________

_____________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of DHCJ (Non-refoulement Claims) Teresa Wu (“the Judge”) dated 14 May 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 29 November 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The Applicant claims to be a citizen of Pakistan. On 11 May 2016, the Applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by his suppliers. The Applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 22 August 2018, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 29 November 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.

3.  The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 14 May 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 26 May 2025, the Applicant states the following:

“I am Disagree with the Decision Maker authorities. The Decision made by Director of Immegration, As well as Decision made by The Adjudicator of The Torture Claims Appeal Board. I don not Think my claim determined fairly.”

5.  In the skeleton argument filed on 20 January 2026, the Applicant essentially asserts the decisions of the Director and the Board were wrong, unreasonable, unfair and failed to appreciate or give sufficient weight to state acquiescence.

6.  The appeal was heard on 25 February 2026. The Applicant attended the hearing with the assistance of an interpreter and had nothing further to add.

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 below will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there are errors of law, 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 and skeleton argument are all mere allegations against the Director and the Board. They do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision.

10.  The Applicant has failed to identify and substantiate 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.

The Applicant, acting in person