Ayub Usman v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 701/2025, [2026] HKCA 771

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 3642

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 701 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 3322 OF 2019)

________________________

BETWEEN

_____________________

_____________________

JUDGMENT

_____________________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung (“the Judge”) dated 28 August 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 21 October 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.The Applicant is a national of Pakistan. On 28 March 2018, the Applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by members and/or supporters of the Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) and their subordinates.[1] The Applicant’s claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 4 September 2018, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 21 October 2019. Details of the Applicant’s claim and the Board’s reasons for rejecting the Applicant’s appeal can be found in the Board’s Decision, the hyperlink to which can be found in the CALL-1 Form dated 28 August 2025.[2]

3.The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 28 August 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 5 September 2025, the Applicant states that:

“I am the applicant here in the decision made by Deputy High Court Judge K.W. LUNG has been reached unfairy without membering given me the opportunity to clarify my case and the situation in my country.” (sic)

5.The Applicant has failed to lodge written submissions in support of the appeal in accordance with the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 16 December 2025. Accordingly, the Applicant is deemed to have waived the 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.

DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION

6.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)).

7.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.

8.Contrary to the complaint of not having an opportunity to clarify his case and the situation in his country, the Applicant attended a hearing in open court before the Judge but failed to raise any valid ground to challenge the Board’s findings.[3]

9.The matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal are all general allegations without particulars. They do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision. The Applicant’s appeal has no merit, and is dismissed.

The Applicant, unrepresented, acted in person