Ansari Sohrab Alam v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
|
CACV 1035/2025, [2026] HKCA 1427 On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 5165 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO 1035 OF 2025 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1073 OF 2025) _____________________ BETWEEN
_____________________
_____________________ JUDGMENT _____________________ The Court: INTRODUCTION 1.This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of DHCJ K.W. Lung (“the Judge”) dated 6 November 2025 (“the Order”) 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 18 February 2025 (“the Board’s Decision”). BACKGROUND 2.The Applicant is a national of India. The Applicant previously lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by a creditor who is a Hindi because he was unable to repay a loan, and because he is a Muslim. The Applicant’s claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 20 November 2024, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 18 February 2025. 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 CALL-1 Form dated 6 November 2025. 3.The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 6 November 2025. Details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can be found in the CALL-1 Form. GROUNDS OF APPEAL 4.In the Notice of Appeal filed on 17 November 2025, the Applicant states the following that:
5.In the skeleton argument filed on 6 July 2026, the Applicant states that he disagrees with the decisions of the Director and the Board because his case was not determined fairly. The Applicant complains that he was prejudiced in the proceedings below by reason of a lack of language and legal assistance, and the Board was in breach of the principles of procedural fairness and unreasonableness (including unlawfully fettered its discretion to refuse his appeal, not conducting more analysis on his claim, and not taking greater care to a self-represented claimant). The Applicant further argues that the authorities were merely active on the basis of quick disposal of non-refoulement cases, which is unacceptable. 6.The appeal was heard on 11 August 2026. The Applicant attended the hearing in person with the assistance of a Hindi interpreter and basically repeated his case. LEGAL PRINCIPLES 7.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 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 & DISPOSITION 9.Regarding the lack of legal and language assistance, it has been repeatedly emphasised by this Court that as a matter of law, a non-refoulement claimant is not entitled to free legal representation at all stages of the process and that the high standard of fairness required by law does not entail interpretation service being made available to an applicant all the time as he desires: Re Pante Luisa Tuppil [2025] HKCA 1123 at [11]. In any event, the Applicant was educated up to college level. He was able to prepare his skeleton argument in reasonable English. 10.The matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal and skeleton argument are all general allegations without particulars. They do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision. 11.The Applicant has failed to identify or show any error in the Judge’s decision refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review, or raise any viable ground of appeal against the Order. 12.The Applicant’s appeal has no merit, and is dismissed.
The Applicant, acting in person |
Cases cited in this judgment