MUHAMMAD NASEEM BAIG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 383/2025, [2026] HKCA 448

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 2201

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 383 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 518 OF 2020)

________________________

BETWEEN

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

_____________________

Before:

Hon Poon CJHC and Ng J in Court

Date of Hearing:	25 February 2026
Date of Judgment:	17 March 2026

_____________________

JUDGMENT

_____________________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-Refoulement Claims) Philips Wong (“the Judge”) dated 29 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 20 March 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The applicant is a national of Pakistan.[1] On 22 August 2013, the applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by people of the Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz).[2] The applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 29 May 2018, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 20 March 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 29 May 2025.[3]

3.  The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 29 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 10 June 2025, the applicant states the following that:

“I am disagree with the decision maker authorities. There were totally relied on some web news which officially not recognised. There also not proper investigation in my claim. I do not think my claim determined fairly.” (sic)

5.  In the written submissions lodged on 15 January 2026, apart from reiterating what he stated in the Notice of Appeal, the applicant essentially argues that:

(1) He was not provided with legal and language assistance.

(2) The Board unlawfully fettered its discretion by refusing his appeal.

(3) The Board acted in a procedural unfairness in dealing with his appeal.

(4) The Board’s decision to refuse his appeal was unreasonable or irrational in the public law sense.

(5) The Board failed to meet the greater care and duty owed to a self-represented claimant.

(6) The authorities’ attitude towards non-refoulement claimants on the basis of quick disposal of non-refoulement cases is discriminatory.

(7) The lack of sound judgment and fairness throughout the non-refoulement claims process is appealing and should not be tolerated.

6.  At the hearing on 25 February 2026, the applicant had nothing to add.

DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION

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.

9.  Regarding the lack of legal and language assistance, it has been repeatedly emphasised by this Court that as a matter of law, a non-refoulement claimant is not entitled to free legal representation at all stages of the process and that the high standard of fairness required by law does not entail interpretation service being made available to an applicant all the time as he desires: Re Pante Luisa Tuppil[2025] HKCA 1123 at [11].

10.  The matters raised in the applicant’s Notice of Appeal and written submissions are all general allegations without particulars. They do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision.

11.  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.

12.  The applicant’s appeal has no merit, and is dismissed.

(Jeremy Poon)	(Peter Ng)
Chief Judge of the	Judge of the Court of
High Court	First Instance

The applicant appeared in person