MERAJ AHAMAD alias MERAJ AHMED v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CACV 926/2025, [2026] HKCA 38

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 4956

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO.926 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 26 OF 2021)

________________________

________________________

________________________

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 21 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 23 December 2020 (“Board’s Decision”)  was dismissed. By that decision, the Board upheld the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”)  whereby the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected.

2.  The Applicant is a national of India.  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 his neighbour due to boundary dispute if he returns to his country.

3.  In [9] to [12] of the CALL-1 Form, the Judge gave detailed reasons for refusing the Leave Application.

4.  By a Notice of Appeal filed on 24 October 2025, the Applicant appeals against the Judge’s decision.  The Applicant contends that:

“… I want to apply judicial review against my ORDER because I am not satisfied with this ORDER. I want to let you know more that my life is still danger in my home country and if you send me back or Immigration send me back my country now then may be I will died there. …”

5.  In his skeleton arguments lodged on 16 December 2025, the Applicant submits that: (1)  the Director and the Board wrongly assessed his non-refoulement claim and the decisions were not reasonable or fair and were irrational; (2)  the Director failed to appreciate or give proper importance to the issue of state acquiescence; (3)  the Board placed too much reliance on Country of Origin Information (“COI”)  but failed to take the Applicant’s personal background and experience into account; and (4)  although the Director had listed relevant COI supporting the view that the police would not be able to protect him, the Director failed to consider or give enough weight to that evidence.

6.  The Applicant had nothing further to add at the hearing of this appeal.

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, COI, 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, we note that they had never been raised in the Form 86 or the affirmation filed in support of the same.  Indeed, those documents did not contain any ground in support of the Leave Application.  The Applicant has not given any reason why he should be allowed to raise these grounds for the first time at the appeal stage, nor can we find any good reason to allow him to do so. 

10.  In any event, grounds (1)  to (3)  are devoid of proper particulars, and are not valid grounds of appeal.  As for ground (4), the weight to be given to COI was a matter for the Director and the Board. Further, as pointed out in [11] of the CALL-1 Form, even if the Applicant faces a real risk of harm relocation to other part of India is a viable option (as found by the Director and the Board).  We are unable to find any merit in this appeal.

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

The Applicant appeared in person