Jafar Tufail v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 25/2026, [2026] HKCA 413

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 6409

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 25 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 288 OF 2021)

_______________

_______________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Hon Eugene Fung J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge K. W. Lung (“the Judge”) dated 30 December 2025 ([2025] HKCFI 6409) (“the Leave Decision”) refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review (“the Leave Application”) against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 10 February 2021 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed his appeal/petition against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 4 May 2020, refusing his non-refoulement claim.

2.The applicant’s background, the basis of his claim and arguments advanced before the Board as well as the Board’s reasons for rejecting his appeal are all set out in the Board’s Decision: see [3], [8]-[9] of the Leave Decision.

3.The applicant is a national of Pakistan.   He claimed to have arrived in Hong Kong in November 2019, and made a non-refoulement claim in the same month, which was refused on 4 May 2020.  The basis of his claim is that if he were to return to Pakistan, he will be harmed or killed by two businessmen over a business dispute. 

4.The Judge sets out his reasons for refusing the Leave Application: see [10]-[11], [15]-[17] of the Leave Decision.  We will not repeat the details herein.

5.By the Notice of Appeal filed on 12 January 2026, the applicant stated:

“I am disagree with the decision maker authorities. Sir decision maker not give me justice. They make decision totally unfair. They not proper investigation in my case. Sir my life have so danger in my country. Please grant my case for safety of my life. I do not think my case determined fairly.”

6.This appeal was scheduled to be heard on 3 March 2026.  As the applicant did not lodge any written submissions, the scheduled hearing of his appeal was vacated pursuant to the directions of the Court.  We shall accordingly determine the appeal on the basis of the available documents and materials.

7.The relevant legal principles governing appeals in non‑refoulement cases are set out in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14].

8.In particular, in an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in non-refoulement cases, 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)].

9.In light of the above, it is thus incumbent on the applicant to point out the errors in the Leave Decision with sufficient particulars.

10.However, nowhere in his Notice of Appeal has the applicant identified any error committed by the Judge with specific particulars.  His assertions are all general, bare and vague allegations unsupported by particulars or specific evidence.  General assertions of his fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].  The Court will not usurp the role of the Board.  Assessment of evidence, country of origin information materials, 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.  No such error was demonstrated by the applicant.  Clearly, his assertions do not constitute viable grounds of appeal.  We see no basis to interfere with the Leave Decision.

11.For the above reasons, the applicant’s appeal against the Leave Decision has no merit and is dismissed.

The applicant acting in person