Sadiq Touseef v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 154/2026, [2026] HKCA 821

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 795

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 154 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 609 OF 2021)

________________________

________________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

Hon Lisa Wong J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

Introduction

1.This is an appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Jeffrey Chau (“Judge”) on 12 February 2026 refusing to grant the applicant, a national of Pakistan, leave to apply for judicial review (“Judge’s Decision”). The intended judicial review sought to quash the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / adjudicator of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dated 22 April 2021 (“Board’s Decision”), which upheld the decisions of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 10 October 2013 and 8 March 2018 rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

2.The applicant’s claim was made on the basis of a fear of being harmed or killed by his family, friends and other Muslims, upon refoulement, due to his conversion from the Sunni Islamic faith to Christianity. Details of the applicant’s background, the circumstances giving rise to his said alleged fear, the arguments advanced by him before the Board and the Board’s reasons for rejecting his appeal are all set out in the Board’s Decision[1]. For the grounds advanced by the applicant in support of his application for leave to apply for judicial review and the Judge’s reasons for refusal, see [8] – [13] of the Form CALL-1.  

Appeal to this Court

3.By the notice of appeal filed herein on 24 February 2026, the applicant appealed against the Judge’s Decision, essentially on the grounds (1) that the Board’s Decision was unfair; (2) that the Judge only followed the decision of the Board; (3) that his problem in his home country was very severe; and (4) that he would be killed by his enemies upon refoulement.

4.The applicant’s written submission dated 27 March 2026 contended (1) that the Judge erred by not finding the decisions of the Director and the Board to be irrational and unreasonable; (2) that the Director and the Board failed to give reasons to justify their respective decisions; (3) that the Judge did not analyse his claim properly; (4) that the Board failed to allow him an opportunity to provide further evidence; (5) that the Board relied on sources of news that were not officially recognised; and (6) that the Board’s finding of existence of state protection in Pakistan was irrational. The applicant also added that he has married a woman from the Philippines in Hong Kong and they have a 5 year old child.

5.At the hearing, the applicant reiterated that his life remains in danger in Pakistan and that he still has a lot of problems back home. He urged the court to look into his case again as his documents were not properly considered before. The applicant further informed the court that he has a wife and a child here.

Legal Principles

6.We refer to Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14]; Re Md Shohel Sheak [2018] HKCA 714 at [13]; and Re Limbu Birkhaman [2019] HKCA 50 at [11] for the principles governing the Court of First Instance’s role in judicial review in non-refoulement claims and the Court of Appeal’s approach in an appeal against refusal of leave for judicial review in non-refoulement claims.

7.First, the primary decision-makers in a  non-refoulement claim are the Director and the Board. They alone assess the evidence and find relevant facts. An application for leave for judicial review does not provide a further avenue of appeal. The court will not re-assess the non-refoulement claim. It will intervene by way of judicial review only for errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality.

8.Second, an appeal against a refusal of leave to apply for judicial review is not the occasion for the Court of Appeal to examine the decision of the Board afresh as if the appeal were a fresh application for leave for judicial review. This court is concerned with the decision of the judge at first instance, which it will consider in light of the grounds of appeal raised by the applicant. The Court of Appeal shall interfere only if the judge had erred in law, failed to take into account a relevant matter or was otherwise plainly wrong. If no such error is shown, the appeal should be dismissed.

Discussion

9.In the present case, the Board found no real risk of harm to the applicant upon refoulement because there were matters that undermined his evidence and the credibility of the documents he produced. Even if the Board accepted the applicant’s claims as true, the Board found the alleged risk to be below the minimum level of severity and that internal relocation to places with established Christian communities, such as Lahore, would be viable for the applicant as an educated man who had operated his own computer business. These are findings of fact open to the Board on the evidence it received and for the reasons it gave. The applicant has failed to show any or any reasonably arguable public law error in the Board’s Decision.

10.Equally, the applicant has not demonstrated any error in the Judge’s Decision. We are not satisfied that there is any error in the Judge’s Decision.

11.The applicant’s appeal is accordingly dismissed.

The applicant, unrepresented, appeared in person