Case Detail

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

Related cases with same parties

CACV100/2026SINGH NARINDER PAL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV10/2022ROBILLOS ADOLFO DE LA CRUZ v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV103/2021LUU THI VAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD /NON REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV103/2023ALMAS KHAWAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV103/2025COLLINS OBI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV104/2019DHALI JONY v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV104/2023VU THI NGOC MY v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV105/2021DINH THI VAN 對 TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITON OFFICE
CACV107/2023NGUYEN THI THUY v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV107/2025AHMAD AQEEL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV1081/2025HOANG VAN BINH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV110/2021AYUB MUHAMMAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV11/2023RUPASINGHA ARACHCHIGE SHIROMA THARANGANI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV112/2025NONG THI HA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV113/2022SITI MULDIYATI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV1151/2025ARSHDEEP SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV115/2022GALLEGO VALDES AUGUSTO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV115/2024QUIRANTE JACKIELON DE GUZMAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV115/2025DINH KHAC KIEN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV1153/2025MEGA PUSPITA SARI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Files (2)

[2026] HKCA 630-EN-2026-04-21

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

HTML content

CACV 943/2025, [2026] HKCA 630

On Appeal from [2025] HKCFI 4884

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 943 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2249 OF 2020)

________________________

BETWEEN
	MUHAMMAD SUDHEER	Applicant

	and

	TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE	Putative Respondent

	and

	DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION	Putative Interested Party

_____________________

Before:

Hon Anthony Chan JA and H. Au-Yeung J in Court

Date of Written Submissions:	5 March 2026
Date of Judgment:	21 April 2026

________________________

JUDGMENT

________________________

Hon H. Au-Yeung J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1. On 9 February 2026, this court (Anthony Chan JA and H. Au-Yeung J) handed down a judgment ([2026] HKCA 30) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Philips Wong given on 17 October 2025 refusing leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dismissing his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting his non-refoulement claim.

2. By a Notice of Motion filed on 20 February 2026, the applicant applied for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, he stated that:

“1. The learned Judges were wrong as a matter of Law for not having applied the principle of procedural unfairness to the decision of the director whereby the director was required to give reasons justifying the decision.
2. The learned Judges were wrong as a matter of law for not having applied the principle of irrationality to the decision made by the Director of Immigration refusing my application for Judicial Review.
3. There is some error in law in my decision. The decision maker just relied on COL information and my previous facts, which were favor on rejecting my claim.
4. Actual life occurs in different situations than mentioned in COL information. Officers and courts prefer to ignore the overwhelming evidence of the violence towards minorities searching for unrealistic silver lining.
5. The Judge did not apply the law properly & Procedural unfairness.
6. I further want to explain that my life is in danger in my country. I would be killed or harmed if I return to my country.”

3. In his Written Submissions lodged on 5 March 2026, the applicant submitted, inter alia, that the Board did not properly assess the applicant’s credibility. It acted in a procedurally unfair manner, which fell short of the required high standard of fairness.

4. He had also referred to a number of case authorities, but he did not explain the relevance thereof.

5. Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion and Written Submissions, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on paper. We have, therefore, determined the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents filed.

6. The matters stated by the applicant do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. He has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484, Laws of Hong Kong) (“the Ordinance”). Nor is any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised.

7. The applicant has also failed to demonstrate any error in our judgment.

8. Neither do we see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance.

9. For these reasons, the Notice of Motion filed on 20 February 2026 is dismissed.

(Anthony Chan)
Justice of Appeal

(Herbert Au-Yeung)
Judge of the Court of
First Instance

The applicant, acting in person

CACV 943/2025, [2026] HKCA 30

On Appeal from [2025] HKCFI 4884

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 943 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2249 OF 2020)

________________________

BETWEEN

	MUHAMMAD SUDHEER	Applicant
	and
	TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE	Putative Respondent
	and
	DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION	Putative Interested Party

________________________

Before:

Hon Anthony Chan JA and H. Au-Yeung J in Court

Date of Judgment:

9 February 2026

________________________

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 (“theJudge”) dated 17 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 3 September 2020 (“theBoard’s Decision”) was dismissed. By that decision, the Board upheld the decision of the Director of Immigration (“theDirector”) 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 detail in the Board’s Decision, which may be viewed online via the hyperlink contained in footnote 1 of the CALL-1 Form.

3. In [8] – [17] of the CALL-1 Form, the Judge gave reasons for refusing the Leave Application.

4. By a Notice of Appeal filed on 28 October 2025, the applicant appeals against the Judge’s decision. The applicant contends that:

(1)  the Director, the Board and the Court failed to appreciate and to give proper weight to the issue of state acquiescence;
(2)  the Board failed to make sufficient enquiry before finalizing the Board’s Decision;
(3)  the Director’s use of Country of Origin information was selective and unfair; and
(4)  the Board and the Director failed to note the gravity of the applicant’s circumstances.

5. The appeal was scheduled to be heard on 8 January 2026. The applicant has failed to lodge any skeleton argument in support of his appeal in accordance with the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 27 November 2025. Accordingly, the applicant is deemed to have waived his right to have an oral hearing of the appeal and elected to have the appeal disposed of on paper. Having considered the documents before us, we consider that it is appropriate to deal with the applicant’s appeal on paper without an oral hearing.

6. 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)]).

7. 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].

8. We note that most of the grounds in the Notice of Appeal were directed towards alleged errors by the Board and the Director and not to any error by the Judge. As for the ground based on the Judge’s failure to consider state acquiescence, we note that this issue was never raised in the Form 86 or the affirmation filed in support of the Form 86. The applicant is not allowed to raise fact-sensitive issue for the first time on appeal. The applicant has therefore failed to advance any viable ground of appeal.

9. In any event, having considered the Judge’s reasons for dismissing the Leave Application, we are of the view that that decision must be correct.

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

(Anthony Chan)	(Herbert Au-Yeung)
Justice of Appeal	Judge of the Court of First Instance

The applicant, acting in person