Jamshaid Muhammad v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 507/2026, [2026] HKCA 1282

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 2513

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 507 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1160 OF 2021)

________________________

BETWEEN

_____________________

_____________________

JUDGMENT

_____________________

Hon Winnie Tsui J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-Refoulement Claims) Lewis Law (“the Judge”) dated 8 May 2026 (“the Order”) refusing to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 9 August 2021 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 26 October 2018.

2.The Applicant alleges that, if refouled to Pakistan, he will be harmed or killed by the brother of a traffic accident victim (Altaf) because he was the driver who caused the death of that victim in the traffic accident in September 2014. The Applicant’s background, the basis of his claim, the findings of the Board and its reasons for dismissing his appeal against the Director’s decision are set out in detail in the Board’s Decision, and referred to by the Judge in the Judge’s decision (see §2 of the CALL-1 Form). We do not propose to repeat them here.

3.The Judge’s reasons for dismissing the Applicant’s leave application are set out at §§3-5 of the CALL-1 Form. In gist, the Judge considered that the Applicant did not put forth any or any proper grounds for his intended judicial review, and the Judge found no reasonably arguable grounds to interfere with the Board’s Decision.

THIS APPEAL

4.In his Notice of Appeal filed on 19 May 2026, the Applicant complains that the Judge did not consider his claim properly and repeats his claimed fear of being harmed by his enemies if refouled.

5.The Applicant has failed to lodge written submissions in support of his appeal in accordance with the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 19 May 2026. Accordingly, he is deemed to have waived the right to have an oral hearing of his appeal and elected to have his 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.

DISCUSSION

6.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’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)).

7.Further, 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, at §13. No such error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board is shown in the present case.

8.The Applicant has failed to raise any viable ground of appeal against the Order.

9.The Applicant’s appeal has no merit, and is dismissed.

The Applicant, acting in person