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

CACV 902/2025, [2026] HKCA 537

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 4629

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 902 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1120 OF 2020)

________________________

_____________________

________________

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) Val Chow (“the Judge”) dated 6 October 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 17 April 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The Applicant is a national of Pakistan. The Applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be ill-treated or killed by Farman Ali and Zaheer Abbas, who murdered his brother in 2004. They were affiliated to the Pakistan People’s Party. The Applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 15 July 2015 and 2 November 2016, and the appeal against the Director’s decisions was rejected by the Board on 17 April 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.

3.  The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 6 October 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 20 October 2025, the Applicant stated that:

“I do not agree with the decision of the court. This decision has endangered my life and make me liable to remove from Hong Kong to a risk state. I still have severe ongoing problems in my home country and If I am sent back, I will be killed just like my brother was killed. The decision makers did not scrutinize my problems properly.”

5.  In the skeleton argument filed on 23 February 2026, the Applicant cited two cases and reiterated the general principles for judicial review. The Applicant also argues that:

(1)  The Court failed to take into consideration that four men were still looking for him in Pakistan.

(2)  The Court failed to address the fact that he had been kidnapped and attacked in Pakistan.

(3)  The Court failed to properly consider that relocation was not an option for him.

(4)  The Court failed to take into consideration that the police in Pakistan was unable to assist him after he was kidnapped and assaulted in Pakistan.

6.  The appeal was heard on 24 March 2026. The Applicant attended the hearing in person with the assistance of an Urdu interpreter. He added that his wife and his father were attacked by his enemies in Pakistan. He also added that his wife is a permanent Hong Kong resident, and he and his wife had medical issues.

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 bare 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.

The Applicant, acting in person