Rizwan Muhammad v. Torture Claims Appeal Board

Case No.CACV 727/2026[2026] HKCA 1586
Court
Court of Appeal
Date08 Sep 2026
Judge
Case Document
100%

CACV 727/2026, [2026] HKCA 1586

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 3606

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 727 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1029 OF 2021)

________________________

BETWEEN

RIZWAN MUHAMMAD Applicant
and
TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD Putative Respondent
and
DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION Putative Interested Party

_____________________

Before: Hon Anthony Chan JA and Ng J in Court
Date of Judgment: 8 September 2026

_____________________

JUDGMENT

_____________________

Hon Ng J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

Introduction

1.This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of DHCJ Michael Wong (“the Judge”) dated 24 June 2026 (“the Order”) refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/ (“the Board”) dated 26 May 2021 (“the Board’s Decision”).

Background

2.The Applicant is a national of Pakistan. He lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by the supporters and members of the Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) (“PML”) due to political dispute since he was a supporter of the opposition party, Pakistan People’s Party. The Applicant’s claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 26 June 2020, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 26 May 2021. 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.

3.The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 24 June 2026. 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 8 July 2026, the Applicant stated the following:

“The Honorable High Court Judge have not shown Any personal opinion. He Just copy from the Adjudicator of [TCAB] He might failed to show any (CAOS) for cancel my leave. Although, I Respect to the Honourable Judge decision and urge for another Judgement.”

5.The Applicant filed an affirmation on 8 July 2026 (“Affirmation”) in which he claimed inter alia that his life was still in danger and his enemy might kill him if he goes back to Pakistan and that the PML are in power and more aggressive.

6.This appeal was scheduled to be heard on 25 August 2026. The Applicant has failed to lodge any skeleton argument in support of his appeal in accordance with the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals. Accordingly, the Applicant is deemed to have waived his right to have an oral hearing of the appeal, and elected to have the 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.

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, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022.

Discussion and Disposition

9.The matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal and Affirmation are all bare allegations without particulars. They do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the Order. The Applicant’s claim that the Judge copied from the Board’s adjudicator is unfounded. In the present case, the Judge examined and scrutinised the Board’s Decision and found no errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision.

10.The Applicant has failed to identify 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.

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

( Anthony Chan ) ( Peter Ng )
Justice of Appeal Judge of the Court of First Instance

The Applicant, acting in person

Related Cases
Ranked by citation overlap · cases that cite each other appear first

Boimin Sunarti Alias Sunarti v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 1781/2025 · High Court CFI
10 Sep 2026
2 shared citations

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

HCAL 1780/2025 · High Court CFI
10 Sep 2026
2 shared citations

Hussain Anwar v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 1779/2025 · High Court CFI
10 Sep 2026
2 shared citations

Nguyen Xuan Truong v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 1762/2025 · High Court CFI
10 Sep 2026
2 shared citations