Nawaz Muhammad Umar v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 794/2025, [2026] HKCA 850

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 3410

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 794 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 3295 OF 2019)

________________________

_____________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of DHCJ KW Lung (“the Judge”) dated 15 September 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 31 October 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.The Applicant is a national of Pakistan. The Applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by members of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Isaaf due to a political dispute. The Applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 30 July 2019, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 31 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.

3.The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 15 September 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 25 September 2025, the Applicant stated that:

“I Recived my case decision. But I am disagree with the decision Maker authorties. This decision unbelieveable. Decision Maker authorties not give Justice, why This Decision and Torture claim appeal Board Decision same. I Think Judicial system have error. my life still have Threating my Home country. Their police not help us no have protection From police. I need Justice. I do not Think my claim determined Fast.”

5.The Applicant filed his skeleton argument late and thus not in accordance with the directions issued by the Registrar of Civil Appeals. Accordingly, the Applicant is deemed to have waived the right to have an oral hearing of the appeal and elect 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.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

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 below will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there are errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022.

DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION

8.The matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal and skeleton argument are all bare 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 substantiate 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.

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

The Applicant, acting in person