Ali Liaqat v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 350/2026, [2026] HKCA 1045

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 1825

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 350 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 824 OF 2021)

________________________

_____________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

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

Introduction

1.This is the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of DHCJ Bruno Chan (“the Judge”) dated 30 March 2026 (“the Decision”) 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 13 April 2021 (“the Board’s Decision”). By that decision, the Board upheld the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

Background

2.The Applicant is a national of Pakistan. In 2009, he was arrested for illegally remaining in Hong Kong, and he lodged a torture claim which was rejected by the Director of Immigration on 27 December 2013. On 31 December 2013, the Applicant lodged a further non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by his wife’s family who disapproved of their marriage. The Applicant’s claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 21 June 2018, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 13 April 2021. 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 Form CALL-1 dated 30 March 2026.

3.The Board found the Applicant’s evidence not to be credible or reliable in material aspects, and was not satisfied that the Applicant was a witness of truth. The Board did not accept that the Applicant feared returning to Pakistan for the reason claimed.

4.The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 30 March 2026. Details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can be found in the Form CALL-1. The Judge noted that the Board had rejected the Applicant’s case essentially because of its adverse findings regarding the Applicant’s credibility. The Judge did not find any error of law or procedural unfairness in the Board’s Decision, and therefore there was no reasonably arguable basis to challenge the Board’s findings.

Grounds of Appeal

5.In the Notice of Appeal filed on 2 April 2026, the Applicant stated that:

“I am disagree with the decision maker authorities. The Judgement Given by the court of First Instanc and the decision made by the both Respondent’s. These decision is very unfair to me. So I do not think my case determined fairly.” (sic)

6.The Applicant failed to comply with the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals to lodge written submissions in support of the appeal on or before 19 May 2026. Accordingly, the Applicant is deemed to have waived the right to have an oral hearing of the appeal and to have 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.

Legal Principles

7.In an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in non-refoulement cases, the Court of Appeal will 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 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.

Discussion and Disposition

9.The Board rejected the Applicant’s case because of its adverse findings regarding his credibility, which were findings that the Board was entitled to make on the evidence placed before it. The Judge did not find any error of law or procedural unfairness in the Board’s Decision, and concluded that there was therefore no basis to challenge the Board’s findings. The Applicant has not identified any error in the Judge’s reasoning. 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 Decision.

10.The Applicant’s appeal has no merit, and is dismissed with no order as to costs.

The Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person