Ahmed Shabbir v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 904/2025, [2026] HKCA 1172

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 4379

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 904 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2179 OF 2020)

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.This is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”). The applicant is a national of Pakistan whose claim for non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong was rejected by the Director of Immigration and by the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”). His application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision was dismissed by the Court of First Instance. His appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court in our judgment dated 13 February 2026.

2.By Notice of Motion filed on 25 February 2026, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA.  In that document the applicant stated that because of his limited ability in English and the lack of legal representation, he had had difficulty in understanding the process and expressing his case clearly.  He complained that the Judge committed public law errors by focusing on technical legal jargon rather than applying anxious scrutiny to his materials prepared without legal representation, which clearly detailed his fear of death, torture, or persecution in Pakistan due to his religion.  Furthermore, the applicant asserted that the court took an overly narrow approach to evidence by dismissing relevant country of origin information, including articles about severe religious mob violence and a recent lynching in his hometown, simply because the articles did not mention his name.  Finally, he contended that the Judge and the Board misdirected themselves on BOR 2 risk by limiting the assessment to state prosecution, completely failing to evaluate the real risk of serious harm from non-state actors and extremists where state protection is ineffective or complicit.

3.In his written submissions, the applicant stated that the Board and the lower court misdirected themselves on BOR 2 risk by limiting it to state prosecution rather than addressing serious danger from private mobs where state protection was ineffective.  He repeated his personal history of being targeted, attacked, and threatened by a Shia community group in Pakistan due to sectarian differences, in contrast to the Board’s findings that his past injuries were insufficient or that state protection was reliably available.  He maintained that because his life is at stake, the court failed to apply anxious scrutiny at the leave stage.  Furthermore, he asserted that the Board provided inadequate reasoning and failed to explain how it evaluated objective country conditions regarding local sectarian violence against his personal evidence.  Ultimately, the applicant clarified that he did not challenge the finding of credibility, but he wanted the court to check if the Board gave proper reasons and if there were the following public law errors: the misapplication of the BOR 2 test, a failure to consider relevant evidence, and a lack of proper judicial scrutiny. 

4.There is no reason for us to depart from the usual practice of determining an application for leave to appeal on the basis of the available materials without an oral hearing, as set out in paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1.

5.We take the view that this application ought to be dismissed because the applicant has not shown that the intended appeal raises any question which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the CFA for decision (which is the condition for giving leave to appeal under section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484), and also because he has failed to show any prospects of success in the intended appeal.

6.Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.

The Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person