ALI JAMSHED v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
HTML content
CACV 761/2025, [2026] HKCA 422
On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 4066
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 761 OF 2025
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 455 OF 2020)
________________________
BETWEEN
_____________________
| Before: | Hon Poon CJHC and Ng J in Court |
| Date of Hearing: | 12 March 2026 |
| Date of Judgment: | 30 March 2026 |
________________
JUDGMENT
________________
The Court:
INTRODUCTION
1. This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of DHCJ Levy (“the Judge”) dated 12 September 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 July 2017 (“the Board’s Decision”).
BACKGROUND
2. The Applicant is a national of Pakistan. On 1 December 2012, the Applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by the Taliban because he refused to join them and be trained to be one of their suicide bombers. The Applicant’s claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 6 July 2016 and 19 May 2017, and the appeal against the Director’s decisions was rejected by the Board on 20 July 2017. 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 12 September 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 18 September 2025, the Applicant states the following:
“I do not agree to the decision of the Court of First Instance. This decision is unfair and it makes me liable to remove from Hong Kong to a risk state in my home country where my life is not safe.”
5. In the skeleton argument filed on 27 January 2026, the Applicant essentially contested the Director and the Board’s decisions, without advancing any substantive argument against the Judge’s decision.
6. The appeal was heard on 12 March 2026. The Applicant attended the hearing in person with the assistance of an Urdu interpreter and added that he had applied for legal aid. But Poon CJHC already explained to the Applicant the automatic stay of proceedings had been lifted.
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 general allegations without particulars. They do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision.
10. The Applicant has failed to identify or 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.
| (Jeremy Poon) Chief Judge of the High Court | (Peter Ng) Judge of the Court of First Instance |
The Applicant, acting in person