HAIDER ALI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 968/2025, [2026] HKCA 57

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 4810

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 968 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1253 OF 2020)

________________________

_____________________

_____________________

J U D G M E N T

_____________________

Hon Chow JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung dated 23 October 2025 (“the Order”) refusing the Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 29 May 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 5 November 2019 refusing his non-refoulement claim.

2.  The Applicant’s background, the basis of his claim and his arguments advanced before the Board as well as the Board’s reasons for rejecting his appeal are set out in the Board’s Decision and summarised in paragraphs 4 to 10 of the CALL-1 Form dated 23 October 2025 ([2025] HKCFI 4810) (“the Leave Decision”). In summary, the Applicant, a Pakistani national, left Pakistan on 15 May 2019 and arrived in Mainland China on 16 May 2019. He claimed to have entered Hong Kong illegally on 19 June 2019 by boat. On 4 July 2019, he surrendered himself to the authorities and lodged a non-refoulement claim. The basis of his claim was that if he returned to Pakistan he would be harmed or killed by his girlfriend’s three brothers due to their disapproval of his relationship with their sister. The Board held that the harm, actual or perceived, from the three brothers was not imminent, and the possible ill-treatment, if any, did not attain the minimum level of severity required for non-refoulement protection to be given. The Board also considered that internal relocation was available to the Applicant.

3.  The grounds advanced by the applicant in support of his application for leave to apply for judicial review, and the Judge’s reasons for his decision are set out in paragraphs 11 to 19 of the Leave Decision. We will not repeat them here.

4.  In his Notice of Appeal filed on 4 November 2025 filed in support of the appeal, the Applicant stated the following:

“I am disagree with the decision maker authorities. Sir this decision same like Torture Claims Appeal Board and Director of Immigration. They not proper investigate my claim also. My case decision no have justice. I do not think my case determined fairly.” [sic]

5.  The Applicant lodged his written submissions on 18 December 2025. In those submissions, the Applicant made various general complaints against the Director and the Adjudicator. None of the complaints was directed at the decision of the Judge.

6.  At the hearing of the appeal on 15 January 2026, the Applicant had nothing to add.

7.  The relevant legal principles governing appeals against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in non-refoulement cases are well settled. In particular, the Court of Appeal will 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’s role is not to examine the decision maker’s decision afresh as if it were a fresh application for judicial review. See Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration[2018] HKCA 524 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 are errors of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: Re Kartini[2019] HKCA 1022. No such error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board is shown in the present case.

9.  It is incumbent on the Applicant in this appeal to point out errors or possible errors in the Leave Decision with sufficient particulars and specifics. He has failed to do so. His allegations and complaints are directed at the Director/the Adjudicator. They cannot constitute valid grounds of appeal against the Order. On this ground alone, the Applicant’s appeal must be dismissed.

10.  In any event, the Applicant’s assertions are all general, bare and vague allegations unsupported by particulars or evidence. General and bare assertions of his fear of harm or ill treatment upon refoulement do not constitute valid grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar[2022] HKCA 627 at [6].

11.  For the above reasons, the Applicant’s appeal is without merit, and is dismissed.

The applicant, unrepresented, appeared in person