Mehmood Asad v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
|
CACV 1058/2025, [2026] HKCA 1542 On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 5417 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO 1058 OF 2025 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2295 OF 2020) BETWEEN
__________________________
________________ JUDGMENT ________________ The Court: 1.This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Philips Wong (“the Judge”) dated 12 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 12 November 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”) whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 22 January 2018 (“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 his girlfriend’s family as they disagreed their marriage due to their different social castes. 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 12 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 20 November 2025, the Applicant sought to appeal the Judge’s decision to this court on the grounds that (sic) :-
5.In the Applicant’s skeleton submission lodged on 10 July 2026, he repeated his claim and stated that it is still dangerous for him to return to his home country, but he did not point out any errors of the Judge at all. 6.At the hearing on 14 August 2026, the Applicant confirmed that he had nothing further to add. 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.In the present case, the Judge found no error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board. It is incumbent on the Applicant to point out the Judge's errors with sufficient particulars and specifics. In our view, the matters set out in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal and written submissions failed to identify any error on the part of the Judge. They do not constitute any viable grounds of appeal and lack substance. We see no basis to interfere with the Judge’s decision. 10.For the above reasons, the Applicant’s appeal is devoid of merits. We dismiss it accordingly.
The Applicant appeared in person |
Cases cited in this judgment