Mahfooz Tayyab v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 378/2025, [2026] HKCA 782

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 2209

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 378 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 403 OF 2020)

________________________

_____________________

________________________

JUDGMENT

________________________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Levy (“the Judge”) dated 4 June 2025, 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 12 March 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.The Applicant is a national of Pakistan. On 5 July 2019, the Applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by a village councilor, a member of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (“PTI”) and his associated PTI supporters.[1]  The Applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 6 September 2019, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 12 March 2020.  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 4 June 2025.[2] 

3.The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 4 June 2025.  Details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can be found in the Form CALL-1. 

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

4.In the Notice of Appeal filed on 9 June 2025, the Applicant states that:

“1. The Director’s Decision, it was evident that the director has failed to appreciate or give the proper importance or weightage to the presence of state Acquiescence in the applicant’s case. This has indeed led to an unfair outcome of rejecting applicants non-refoulement claim.

2. The Applicant submit that the Director, the Adjudicator and the Court have failed to take such argument into account or that the Director has failed to give sufficient weight to such argument before reaching the Decision.

3. The Adjudicator failed to make sufficient enquiring before finalizing the determination. The Adjudicator stated that the applicant had failed to advice any credible evidence to prove material elements of his claim.

4. Surprisingly, the director in applicant Decision while referring to relevant COI’s kept including meaning which suited the applicant pre-conceived conclusion. This was a clean case of unfair attitude shown by the Director which in itself is enough to render the applicant’s decision.

5. The grounds of this appeal are that the gravity of the applicant circumstances has noted been weighed or realized by both putative Respondents while considering the application’s non-refoulement claim. The applicant should be given an opportunity to plead his case properly.” (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 27 December 2025.[3]  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.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.

9.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 Judge’s order. 

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

The Applicant, unrepresented, acted in person

[1] Form CALL-1, §2.

[2] Hyperlink of the Board’s Decision in Form CALL-1, §1.

[3] Letter to the Applicant dated 28 January 2026, § §1-2.