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

CACV 635/2025, [2026] HKCA 118

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 3365

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 635 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 392 OF 2020)

________________________

BETWEEN

_____________________

_____________________

JUDGMENT

_____________________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of DHCJ Levy (“the Judge”) dated 12 August 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 2 March 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The Applicant is a national of Pakistan. The Applicant’s non-refoulement claim was on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by supporters of the Pakistan People’s Party due to his support for the rival Pakistan Muslim League Q Group. The Applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 6 February 2017, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 2 March 2020. Details of the Applicant’s claim and the Board’s reasons for rejecting the Applicant’s appeals can be found in the Board’s decisions, the hyperlinks to which can be found in the CALL-1 Form dated 12 August 2025.

3.  The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 12 August 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 21 August 2025, the Applicant states the following:

“I would like to reject and review the decision made by the court. They disregard my dangerous situation.”

5.  In the skeleton argument filed on 22 December 2025, the Applicant essentially argues the following:

(1) His problem originated from political conflict, a situation that could not be protected by the state.

(2) Pakistan is a country that is fraught with problems on human rights issues and “their police and their COI system have been well known for its corruption and ineffectiveness.”

(3) The COI stated by the Board was “based on knowledge by their own state report without understanding the cultural context in Pakistan.”

(4) Pakistan is a Muslim country that is heavily communal, and it is very easy to track and kill a person.

(5) In judicial review, failure to understand the case and examine it based on the local context is a form of procedural error because the case could be misjudged, leading to erroneous outcome.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

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.  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 or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: Re Kartini[2019] HKCA 1022.

DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION

8.  The matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal and skeleton argument are all general allegations without particulars. They do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision.

9.  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.

10.  The Applicant’s appeal has no merit, and is dismissed.

The Applicant, acting in person