Mohammed Nadeem v. Torture Claims Appeal Board

CACV 454/2026, [2026] HKCA 1355

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 2460

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 454 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2472 OF 2020)

_________________

_________________

_________________

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 Michael Wong (“Judge”) on 29 April 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 8 December 2020.  In that decision, the Board upheld the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 14 November 2018 rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

Background

2.The applicant is a national of India born in 1986 and his claim was made on the basis that if he returned to India, his creditor (Amin) would harm or kill him due to his inability to repay a loan.  Details of the applicant’s background, the basis of his claim and arguments advanced before the Board as well as the Board’s reasons for rejecting his appeal are all 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 his reasons for refusal of the application: see [13] – [34] of the Form CALL-1.

Appeal to this Court

3.On 5 May 2026, the applicant filed his Notice of Appeal against the Judge’s decision.  His stated grounds of appeal were, essentially, that he was not satisfied with the order, that his life was still in danger in his home country, that he could not contact his family for a long time, and that he will provide more evidence about his new problems in India in his written submissions.

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 accordingly determine the appeal on the basis of the available documents and materials.

5.On 10 June 2026, the applicant filed a letter requesting for withdrawal of his appeal, as he did not have any objection to the decisions of the Board or the Director and he would like to go back to India as soon as possible.

Discussion

6.Although the applicant has made a written request for the withdrawal of his appeal, we shall nevertheless briefly discuss the merits of his appeal.

7.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.

8.In the present case, the Board found that there was no real risk of harm upon refoulement as alleged, because it did not find the applicant’s account to credible.  The Board further stated that even if it accepted the applicant’s claim, it would still have found no real risk of harm upon refoulment, because the dispute was over a loan without state involvement, his problems were localized, his claim that the authorities were unable or willing to protect him was untested and fanciful, and internal relocation to a different part of India would be a viable option.  These are findings of fact open to the Board based on the evidence it received and for the reasons it gave. The applicant has failed to show any reasonably arguable public law error in relation to the Board’s decision.

9.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.

10.Pursuant to the applicant’s request, and for the above reasons, the applicant’s appeal is accordingly dismissed.

The Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person