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

CACV 864/2025, [2026] HKCA 34

On Appeal from [2025] HKCFI 4606

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 864 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2402 OF 2020)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon H. Au-Yeung J (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 (“the Judge”)  dated 3 October 2025 by which his application for leave to apply for judicial review (“the Leave Application”)  against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”)  dated 25 November 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”)  was dismissed. By that decision, the Board upheld the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”)  to reject the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

2.  The applicant is a national of Pakistan.  The basis of his non-refoulement claim had been set out in details in the Board’s Decision, which may be viewed online via the hyperlink contained in footnote 1 of the CALL-1 Form. 

3.  In [7] – [10] of the CALL-1 Form, the Judge gave detailed reasons for refusing the Leave Application.

4.  By a Notice of Appeal filed on 10 October 2025, the applicant appeals against the Judge’s decision.  In gist, the applicant contends that:

(1)  the Judge, the Board and the Director failed to give proper weight to the issue of state acquiescence in rejecting the applicant’s claim;

(2)  the Board failed to make sufficient enquiry and erroneously held that he failed to give credible evidence;

(3)  In referring to the relevant country of origin information, the Director included meanings which suited his pre-conceived conclusion; 

(4)  The gravity of the applicant’s circumstances had not been weighed or realized;

(5)  The applicant should be given an opportunity to plead his case properly.

5.  In his written submission dated 9 December 2025, the Applicant submits that:

(1)  the Board failed to carry out a proper and balanced assessment of the applicant’s credibility; and

(2)  the Board failed to meaningfully engage with the applicant’s evidence.

6.  At the appeal hearing, the applicant reiterated that he may be kidnapped if he returns to his home country.

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, 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 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 the present case, one of the applicant’s main complaints is the Board’s alleged finding that his evidence was incredible.  However, the Board in fact did not make such a finding at all.  To the contrary, his application had been considered on the basis that his evidence were mostly credible[1].

10.  As for the rest of the grounds of appeal, the Judge has given detailed reasons for finding that the Board had taken all relevant matters into account and that the Board’s Decision was not Wednesbury unreasonable or irrational[2]. We do not find those grounds to have any merit.  In particular, it is not understood why the applicant alleged that he had not been given any opportunity to plead his case properly, for he has been given the chance, which he did take advantage of, to make both written and oral submissions before the Board and the Judge.

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

The Applicant, acting in person