Nadeem Aslam v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 265/2026, [2026] HKCA 1131

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 1276

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 265 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 901 OF 2021)

____________

____________

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

Hon G Lam JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

Introduction

1.This is an appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Levy (“Judge”) on 13 March 2026 dismissing the applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/adjudicator of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dated 11 May 2021.  In that decision, the Board upheld the notice of further decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 13 September 2017 rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

Background

2.The applicant is a national of Pakistan born in 1981 and his claim was made on the basis that if he returned to Pakistan, he would be harmed or killed by (1) six robbers whom he testified against in court upon their release from prison, (2) assailants of ex-Minister of Law, Mr. Chaudhary, as the applicant witnessed his assassination, (3) specific members of the Pakistan People’s Party due to their political differences, (4) family members of his ex-wife due to their disapproval of their marriage and subsequent divorce, and (5) Shiya Muslims due to religious discrimination as he was a Sunni Muslim.  On 15 December 2016, a differently constituted Board had dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the Director’s decision rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim on three grounds under the Unified Screening Mechanism, but this decision is not the subject matter of the present appeal.  The applicant later appealed against the Director’s decision dated 13 September 2017 dismissing the applicant’s non-refoulement claim on the BOR 2 risk ground. Details ofthe applicant’s claim and arguments advanced before the Board as well as the Board’s reasons for rejecting his appeal in relation to BOR 2 risk are set out in the Board’s decision: see [1] of the Form CALL-1.  The Judge has set out the grounds advanced by the applicant in support of the application and her reasons for refusal of the application: see [6] – [9] of the Form CALL-1.

Appeal to this Court

3.On 18 March 2026, the applicant filed his Notice of Appeal against the Judge’s decision.  His stated grounds of appeal are, essentially, that he disagreed with the decisions of the Judge and the Board, that the decision was unfair, and that his life was not safe in his home country.

4.As the applicant did not lodge any written submissions, the scheduled hearing of his appeal was vacated pursuant to the directions of the Court.  We shall determine the appeal on the basis of the available documents and materials.

Discussion

5.In assessing the merits of the appeal, we shall have regard to the legal principles which this Court has adopted in dealing with appeals in non-refoulement cases: see 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].  In particular, the role of the Court in a judicial review is not to provide a further avenue of appeal.  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.  In the determination of an appeal against the refusal of leave by the Court of First Instance, 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.  It is not the role of this Court to examine the decision of the Board afresh as if the appeal were a fresh application for judicial review.

6.At the hearing before the Board, the applicant declined to give evidence and refused to answer questions from the Board.  The Board found that there was no real risk of harm upon refoulement as alleged after cautiously considering the additional facts the applicant submitted to the Director in relation to BOR 2 risk.  The Board agreed with the Director that the additional facts were hearsay and speculations that did not concern the applicant.  These are findings of fact open to the Board based on the evidence it received and for the reasons it gave, especially given that the applicant refused to engage with the Board’s inquiries. The applicant has failed to show any reasonably arguable public law error in relation to the Board’s decision.

7.Equally, the applicant has not been able to demonstrate any error in the decision of the Judge or advance any viable ground of appeal against the Judge’s decision.  We are not satisfied that there is any error in the Judge’s decision.

8.The applicant’s appeal is accordingly dismissed.

The Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person