TAILOR SIRAJ NIZAMUDDIN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 91/2026, [2026] HKCA 611

On Appeal from [2026] HKCFI 85

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 91 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1290 OF 2020)

________________________

BETWEEN

	TAILOR SIRAJ NIZAMUDDIN	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:

8 April 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)  YW Hew (“the Judge”)  dated 28 January 2026 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 19 June 2020 (“Board’s Decision”)  was dismissed. By that decision, the Board upheld the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”)  rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

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 contained in footnote 1 of the CALL-1 Form.  In gist, the applicant claims that if he returns home, he will be killed or harmed by his relatives due to a land dispute.

3.  In [7] to [13] of the CALL-1 Form, the Judge gave detailed reasons for refusing the Leave Application.

4.  By a Notice of Appeal filed on 3 February 2026, the applicant appeals against the Judge’s decision.  He contends that:

“I do not agree with the decision of the Court of First Instance, because the court just follow the way of making decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board. I have severe problem in my home country. If I return there I will be killed by my enemies.”

5.  This appeal was scheduled to be heard on 26 March 2026.  As 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 3 February 2026, he 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.  As aforesaid, in the Notice of Appeal the applicant claims that the Judge simply followed the Board’s Decision without any independent assessment. We do not agree.  It can be seen that, although the applicant had failed to put forward any ground for judicial review, the Judge conducted detailed analysis of the Board’s Decision in [8] – [12] of the CALL-1 Form.  The Judge found that the Board did not commit any public law error in holding that the applicant’s claim was incredible, that state protection was available and internal relocation was viable.  Hence, this ground of appeal is totally without merit.

9.  In the premises, this 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