Khan Mumraiz v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 763/2025, [2026] HKCA 760

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 4181

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 763 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 728 OF 2020)

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Ng J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

INTRODUCTION

1.This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims)  Lewis Law (“the Judge”)  dated 10 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 11 March 2020 (“the Board’s BOR 2 Decision”)  whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”)  dated 1 June 2017 (“the Director’s BOR 2 Decision”)  regarding his right to life under Article 2 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights (“BOR 2 Risk”).  

BACKGROUND

2.The applicant is a national of Pakistan. He lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by members of the Pakistan Muslim League (Quaid-e-Azam).  The applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director, and his appeal was subsequently rejected by the Board.  Details of the Board’s reasons for rejecting the applicant’s appeal against the Director’s BOR 2 Decision can be found in the Board’s BOR 2 Decision.   

3.The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge and details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can be found in the Form CALL-1.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

4.By a notice of appeal filed on 18 September 2025, the applicant sought to appeal the Judge’s decision to this court.  For the grounds of appeal, the applicant stated that:

“I want to appeal agains the Judgement. I plead to the court of appeal to review my application. “ 

5.In the applicant’s skeleton argument lodged on 17 March 2026, he disputed the decisions of the Director and the Board, without advancing any substantive argument against the Judge’s decision.

6.The appeal was heard on 16 April 2026.  The applicant attended the hearing in person with the assistance of an Urdu interpreter and confirmed that he had nothing further to add.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

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 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

9.In the present case, no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board was detected by the Judge or was pointed out by the applicant apart from the bare assertions as stated in his notice of appeal and his skeleton argument, which were not substantiated with any specific information as to how they apply to his present appeal.

10.It is incumbent on the applicant to point out the Judge’s errors with sufficient particulars.  In our view, the matters set out in the applicant’s notice of appeal and skeleton argument do not constitute any viable grounds of appeal and lack substance. We see no basis to interfere with the Judge’s decision. 

11.The applicant’s appeal is devoid of merits.  We dismiss it accordingly.

The applicant, unrepresented, acted in person