HAQ NAWAZ v TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
|
CACV 842/2025, [2026] HKCA 1598 On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 4385 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO 842 OF 2025 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 996 OF 2025) ________________________ BETWEEN
_____________________
_____________________ JUDGMENT _____________________ Hon Chow JA (giving the Judgment of the Court): 1.This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge To (“the Judge”) dated 23 September 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 11 March 2025 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 9 December 2024. 2.The Applicant alleges that, if refouled to Pakistan, he will be harmed or killed by Yaqoob, Mushtaq and Ishaq (collectively “the Enemies”) and other members of the Shia Muslim community because he refused to convert his religious faith from Sunni Muslim to Shia Muslim[1]. The Applicant’s background, the basis of his claim, the findings of the Board and its reasons for dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the Director’s decision have been set out in the Board’s Decision, and summarised by the Judge in his decision (see §§2-10 of the CALL-1 Form). We do not propose to repeat them here. 3.The Judge’s reasons for dismissing the Applicant’s leave application are set out at §§12 and 13 of the CALL-1 Form. In gist, the Judge held that there was no valid basis for the court to interfere with the Board’s conclusion that the Applicant had failed to establish the factual basis to support his claim. The Judge also held that there was no error of law or procedural unfairness in the Board’s Decision, and no ground to hold that the decision was Wednesbury unreasonable or irrational. THIS APPEAL 4.In his Notice of Appeal filed on 6 October 2025, the Applicant alleges that the Judge’s decision was reached unfairly. 5.In his 10-page written statement attached to the Notice of Appeal, the Applicant essentially repeats the factual basis of his claim, and alleges that his life will still be in danger in his home country if he returns there[2]. He alleges that the Enemies are so powerful all over his home country that state protection will not be available to him and internal relocation is not be a viable option open to him[3]. He complains that he was not given any opportunity or sufficient time to collect and provide evidence to prove his case before the Board since he had been held under immigration detention[4]. He alleges that he will provide all the evidence about his case to the court once he is released from detention[5]. 6.On 6 October 2025, the Applicant consented to his appeal being disposed of on paper by the Court without an oral hearing. 7.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 6 October 2025. DISCUSSION 8.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)). 9.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 errors of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022, at §13. No such error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board is shown in the present case. 10.The matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal and the accompanying written statement are all general assertions without particulars. There is no merit in his allegation that he was not given the opportunity or time to prove his case before the Board. He testified at the hearing before the Board with the aid of an interpreter (see §11 of the Board’s Decision). The Board considered his oral evidence and found significant inconsistencies between his oral and written evidence (see §§81-86 of the Board’s Decision). It was open to the Board, after considering the evidence before it, to come to the view that the Applicant’s case was not credible or reliable. In any event, the Board proceeded to assess the Applicant’s claim on the assumption that the harm allegedly inflicted on him by the Enemies had taken place as he claimed, but the Board concluded that there was no reasonable ground to believe that he would face any real risk of harm upon refoulement (see §§87-94 of the Board’s Decision). The Applicant also attended a hearing before the Judge, but he did not produce any further evidence in support of his leave application. In the present proceedings, the Applicant has not produced to this Court, or taken out any application for leave to adduce, any new evidence which he wishes to rely upon in support of his case. 11.The Applicant’s allegations in the written statement are in substance directed at the Board in relation to the Board’s assessment of evidence, state protection and viability of internal relocation, which as mentioned above are matters primarily within the province of the Board. They do not constitute valid grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision. 12.The Applicant has failed to raise any viable ground of appeal against the Order. 13.The Applicant’s appeal has no merits, and is dismissed.
The Applicant, acting in person |