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

CACV 1024/2025, [2026] HKCA 1559

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 5248

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 1024 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2198 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 (Non-refoulement Claims) Philips Wong (“Judge”) on 7 November 2025 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 21 September 2020.  In that decision, the Board upheld the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 30 January 2019 rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

Background

2.The applicant is a national of Pakistan born in 1984 and his claim was made on the basis that if he returned to Pakistan, the supporters of the Pakistan Muslim League (N) and the Pakistan Tehreek-E-Insaaf would harm or kill him, because he witnessed a fatal shooting between the two political groups.  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 [5] 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 [7] – [18] of the Form CALL-1.

Appeal to this Court

3.On 14 November 2025, the applicant filed his Notice of Appeal against the Judge’s decision.  His stated grounds of appeal were that the gravity of his circumstances was not given weight by the Director and the Board, and that he should be given an opportunity to plead his case properly.

4.The applicant has given consent in writing for this appeal to be disposed of on paper without an oral hearing, and we shall accordingly determine the appeal on the basis of the available documents and materials.

5.The applicant has lodged written submissions in which he recited general legal principles relating to the standards of fairness, Wednesbury unreasonableness, and the late filing of the notice of appeal to the Board, without specific application to his own case.

Discussion

6.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.

7.In the present case, the Board found that there was no real risk of harm upon refoulement as alleged, because it considered the applicant not to be a credible witness.  After consideration of the applicant’s claims individually and cumulatively together with the personal circumstances of the applicant, the Board rejected, inter alia, the very core of the applicant’s claim, namely that he was a witness to the shooting.  As such, the Board found it unnecessary to make findings in relation to internal relocation.  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.

8.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.

9.The applicant’s appeal is accordingly dismissed.

The Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person