Omar Jaufer Mohamed Haris v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 459/2025, [2026] HKCA 685

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 2647

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 459 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2555 OF 2019)

________________________

BETWEEN

_____________________

_____________________

JUDGMENT

_____________________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Reuden Lai (“the Judge”) dated 19 June 2025 (“the Order”) refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 13 August 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.The Applicant is a national of Sri Lanka.[1] On 31 October 2013, the Applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by the family of a girl named RS because he eloped and underwent a marriage ritual with her and she committed suicide while being 10-week pregnant.[2] The Applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 17 February 2017, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 13 August 2019. Details of the Applicant’s claim and the Board’s reasons for rejecting the Applicant’s appeal can be found in the CALL-1 Form dated 19 June 2025.[3]

3.The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 19 June 2025. Details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can be found in the CALL-1 Form.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

4.In the Notice of Appeal filed on 30 June 2025, the Applicant states the following that:

“I wold like to tell in this ground regarding my present situation. Because I was unable to submit my suporting document from my country regarding my problem and now I was married and I have daughter in Hong Kong waiting for depending visa I will explain all of my present situation in my oral hearing” (sic)

5.In the written submissions lodged on 24 February 2026, apart from reiterating his non-refoulement claim, the Applicant argues that:

(1) The Judge’s decision to refuse his appeal was unreasonable.

(2) The Judge failed to apply the principles of irrationality and unfairness to the decisions of the Director and the Board.

(3) The Judge’s decision has real and significant implications for his substantive right not to be subject to torture and his right to non-refoulement protection.

(4) The Judge failed to exercise greater care for his problems in his home country, despite the proof submitted for his claim.

(5) The Judge failed to analyse his claim properly.

(6) The Judge did not accept what had been refused by the Director and the Board.

(7) The Board failed to give him sufficient chance to arrange relevant evidence for his claims and appeal.

(8) The Board relied significantly on the source of news which is not officially recognised or is simply hearsay.

(9) The Board’s decision was irrational for failing to evaluate and make a finding of fact as to whether a consistent pattern of gross and mass violation of human rights and to analyse and assess whether state protection exists in his home country, and for misdirecting himself as to the extended meaning of state protection.

6.At the hearing on 25 March 2026, the applicant had reiterated that he and his family would face danger if he goes back to his home country.

DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION

7.In an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in non-refoulement cases, the Court of Appeal 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. The Court of Appeal’s role is not to examine the Board’s decision afresh as if it was a fresh application for judicial review (see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, at §14(6)).

8.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.

9.The matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal and written submissions are all general allegations without particulars. They do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision.

10.The Applicant has failed to identify or show any error in the Judge’s decision refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review, or raise any viable ground of appeal against the Order.

11.The Applicant’s appeal has no merit, and is dismissed.

The Applicant appeared in person