Ali Arshad v. Torture Claims Appeal Board

CACV 711/2025, [2026] HKCA 1597

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 3815

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 711 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 15 OF 2020)

________________________

BETWEEN

_____________________

_____________________

JUDGMENT

_____________________

Hon Chow JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of S T Poon J (“the Judge”) dated 29 August 2025 (“the Order”) refusing to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 30 December 2019, whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 8 November 2018.

BACKGROUND

2.The Applicant is a national of India.  He entered Hong Kong as a visitor on 24 July 2016, and was permitted to stay until 7  August 2016.  On 8 August 2016, he surrendered himself to the Immigration Department and lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by his creditor over some unpaid debts.  Details of the Applicant’s claim have been summarised by the Judge at §§1-6 of the CALL-1 Form.

3.By a Notice of Decision dated 8 November 2018, the Director dismissed the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim on all applicable grounds: the risk of torture[1], BOR 2 risk[2], BOR 3 risk[3], and persecution risk[4].

4.The Applicant appealed the Director’s decision to the Board.  On 30 December 2019, the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal, and confirmed the Director’s decision (“the Board’s Decision”).  The Board’s reasons for its decision were summarised by the Judge at §10 of the CALL-1 Form, as follows:

“In its decision the Board found that there was no evidence at all showing that Applicant has received any kind of harm from his creditor and it rejected his claim of fear of harm from his creditor that caused him to leave his country to come to Hong Kong to seek protection, and that in any event it was a private monetary dispute between the two of them without any official involvement that state or police protection would be available to the Applicant upon his return to India, and that his claim for non-refoulement protection failed on all applicable grounds.”

THE JUDGE’S DECISION

5.On 2 January 2020, the Applicant filed a Form 86 to apply for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.  He did not put forward any ground for seeking relief in the Form 86 or in his supporting affirmation of the same date, other than stating in his supporting affirmation that he was not satisfied with the decision.

6.On 29 August 2025, the Judge refused to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review, for the following reasons:

“[11] …in the absence of any error of law or irrationality or procedural unfairness in his process before the Board or in its decision being clearly and properly identified by the Applicant, I do not find any reasonably arguable basis for his intended challenge.

…

[13] In the Applicant’s case, the fact is that it has been established by both the Director and the Board in their respective decisions that the risk of harm in his claim if real is a localized one and that it is not unreasonable or unsafe for him to relocate to other part of India, there is simply no justification to afford him with non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong: see TK v Jenkins & Anor [2013] 1 HKC 526.

[14]  In the premises, and having considered the decisions of both the Director and the Board with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny, I do not find any error of law or procedural unfairness in either of them, nor any failure on their part to apply high standards of fairness in their consideration and assessment of the Applicant’s claim.”

THIS APPEAL

7.In his Notice of Appeal filed on 9 September 2025, the Applicant states that he is not satisfied with the Judge’s decision which he alleges is unfair to him.  The Applicant also alleges generally that the Judge made “some law error” in the decision, and failed to consider his case thoroughly and carefully by taking into account all relevant matters.

8.On 9 September 2025, the Applicant consented to his appeal being disposed of on paper by the Court without an oral hearing.

9.The Applicant has failed to lodge written submissions in support of his appeal contrary to the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 15 December 2025.

DISCUSSION

10.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)).

11.Further, 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 error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022.  No such error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board is shown in the present case.

12.The matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal are general assertions without particulars, and do not constitute valid grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision.

13.The Applicant has failed to raise any viable ground of appeal against the Order.

14.The Applicant’s appeal has no merits, and is dismissed.

The Applicant, acting in person