Akhtar Hamid Ali v. Torture Claims Appeal Board
|
CACV 1034/2025, [2026] HKCA 1539 On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 5404 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO 1034 OF 2025 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2063 OF 2020) BETWEEN
__________________________
_____________________ REASONS FOR JUDGMENT _____________________ The Court: 1.This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the Judge”) dated 11 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 29 September 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”) whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 6 January 2020 (“the Director’s Decision”). 2.The Applicant is a national of Pakistan. He lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Immigration Department on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by certain fellow villagers or local gangsters in his home village due to their disputes with his family. The Applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director, and his appeal against it was rejected by the Board. 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 Form CALL-1 dated 11 November 2025 (“the Form CALL-1”). 3.The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge and details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can be found in the Form CALL-1. 4.By a Notice of Appeal filed on 17 November 2025, the Applicant sought to appeal the Judge’s decision to this court essentially on the grounds that (1) the Judge did not give proper consideration to the fairness of his process, (2) the Judge erred in confirming the Board’s Decision which was made without an oral hearing, (3) he did not have legal or language assistance and struggled to clearly present his claim, (4) the Judge did not apply anxious scrutiny when reviewing the Board’s Decision, and (5) the Judge wrongly accepted that relocation would be safe for him. 5.In the Applicant’s skeleton submission lodged on 10 July 2026, he repeated his claim and contended that (1) the Judge erred in confirming the Board’s decision which was made without a hearing, (2) that he did not have any legal and language assistance and (3) as a result he was deprived of a fair opportunity to present his claim which was procedurally unfair. 6.The Applicant was absent at the hearing on 14 August 2026. We dismissed the appeal with reasons to be handed down, which we now do. 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. 9.Firstly, we are unpersuaded by the Applicant’s complaint of lack of legal and language assistance. As a matter of law, a non-refoulement claimant is not entitled to free legal representation at all stages of the process, and the high standard of fairness required by law would not entail an interpretation service to be made available at any time as the applicant desired: see Re Gurnishan Singh [2018] HKCA 704 at §§11 and 13. It is further noted that the Applicant was able to, either by himself or with assistance from others, lodge with the court applications written in comprehensible English. 10.Secondly, the Board may determine an appeal without a hearing if, having regard to the material before it and the nature of the issues raised, the Board is satisfied that the appeal can be justly determined without a hearing: s.12, Schedule 1A Immigration Ordinance (Cap. 115). 11.The Board, before meticulously examining the Applicant’s appeal, gave its reason for not holding a hearing was stated under [6] in the Board’s Decision, which reads:-
12.Further, it is also significant to note that apart from the generic assertions made in his grounds of appeal and his skeleton submissions, the Applicant did not provide any specific information as to how the Judge has erred in his reasoning under [12] - [15] in the Form CALL-1, in which the Judge has already dealt with the Applicant’s present challenges. 13.Accordingly, there is no merit in his assertions and we see no prejudice suffered by the Applicant from the alleged lack of language or legal assistance. Nothing in the Applicant’s grounds of appeal and his skeleton submissions constitutes any viable grounds of appeal and lack substance. We see no basis to interfere with the Judge’s decision. 14.For the above reasons, the Applicant’s appeal is devoid of merits. We dismiss it accordingly.
The Applicant, unrepresented, did not appear |
Cases cited in this judgment