AMIN MUHAMMAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CACV 908/2025, [2026] HKCA 37

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 4775

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 908 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1897 OF 2020)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Anthony Chan JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“Judge”)  dated 14 October 2025 by which his application for leave to apply for judicial review (“Leave Application”)  against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”)  dated 24 July 2020 (“Board’s Decision”)  was dismissed. By that decision, the Board upheld the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”)  by which the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected.

2.  The Applicant is a national of Pakistan.  The basis of his non-refoulement claim had been set out in detail in the Board’s Decision, which may be viewed online via the hyperlink at footnote 1 of the CALL-1 Form.  In gist, the Applicant claims that he would be harmed or killed by local supporters of the political party “Pakistan Muslim League (N)” if he returns to his country.

3.  In [10] to [14] of the CALL-1 Form, the Judge gave detailed reasons for refusing the Leave Application.

4.  By a Notice of Appeal filed on 21 October 2025, the Applicant appeals against the Judge’s decision.  The Applicant contends that: “the high court did not find any error of [proceedings] but I can show many error (sic).  Give me a chance to show the error of the Adjudicator.  My [application should] not be refused”.

5.  In his skeleton arguments dated 11 December 2025, the Applicant summarized the alleged risks he faced in Pakistan and submits that:

(1)  The Judge erred in law by not applying the principle of irrationality to the decisions of the Director and the Board;

(2)  The Judge erred in law by not applying the principle of procedural unfairness whereby the Director and the Board were required to give reasons justifying their decisions;

(3)  High standards of fairness are required in determination of torture claims but the Judge reviewed the matter lightly;

(4)  Despite the severity of his problems in his home country and the proof he submitted, the Judge did not use sufficient care in evaluating his claim;

(5)  The Judge did not analyze his claims properly;

(6)  The Judge’s decision was unreasonable;

(7)  The Judge did not accept his claims which had been refused by the Board and by the Director;

(8)  The Board failed to give him sufficient chance to arrange evidence relevant to his non-refoulement claims and appeal;

(9)  The Applicant faced hardship in his home country and the Board significantly relied on the source of news which was not officially recognized or was simply hearsay;

(10)  The Board irrationally failed to evaluate and make a finding of fact as to whether there was a consistent pattern of gross and mass violation of human rights in his home country; and

(11)  The Board irrationally failed to analyze and assess whether state protection exists in his home country and misdirected itself as to the extended meaning of state protection.

6.  In his oral submissions, the Applicant said that his life is still in danger and his family had recently been subjected to torture. 

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 respect of the grounds contained in the skeleton arguments, each one of them is devoid of proper particulars.  They do not identify any concrete error made by the Judge.  They are thus not viable grounds of appeal.  Further, as the Judge pointed out in [10] and [12] of the CALL-1 Form, the Applicant did not provide any ground to support the Leave Application in his Form 86, and the Judge was unable to find any reasonably arguable basis to challenge the finding of the Board.  The Applicant’s criticisms of the Judge are unfounded.  We are unable to find any merits in any of the grounds advanced in the skeleton arguments.

10.  The Applicant’s oral submissions add no real substance to his case.

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

The Applicant appeared in person