KRISHNA BAHADUR THAKURI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 903/2025, [2026] HKCA 145

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 4643

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 903 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1788 OF 2020)

__________________________

__________________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

The Court:

Introduction

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Martin Wong (“ the Judge”) given in the Form CALL-1 and the Order dated 10 October 2025 ^[1] refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “ Board”) dated 19 June 2020 (the “ Board’s Decision”) whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (the “ Director”) dated 20 April 2017 (the “ Director’s Decision”) and rejecting his non‑refoulement protection claim regarding his right to life under Article 2 (“ BOR 2 Risk”). 

The applicant’s claimand the Judge’s decision

2.  The applicant is a national of Nepal. He filed a non-refoulement claim form with the Immigration Department.  His claim was put on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by the Maoist, a political affiliation, because he broke his promise (forced upon him) to pay them a sum of money as donation.  The applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director, and his appeals against them were rejected by the Board on 19 June 2020. Details of the applicant’s claim and the Board’s reasons for rejecting the applicant’s appeal can be found in the Board Decision.

3.  The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 10 October 2020.  Details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can be found in the Form CALL-1.

The appeal

4.  By a notice of appeal filed on 20 October 2025, the applicant sought to appeal the Judge’s decision to this court.  For the grounds of appeal, the applicant stated that “I am disagree with the decision maker authorities. This decision same as well as Torture Claims Appeal Board and director of Immegration. The decision maker not give me justice. My life have still danger in my country. Our police not help us then what will I do. I come here for protection of my life. I do not think my claim determined fairly.”

5.  The appeal was heard on 30 January 2026. The applicant attended the hearing in person with the assistance of a Nepali interpreter and had nothing to add.

6.  In his skeleton argument lodged on 24 December 2025, he argued that :

(1)     the Director had failed to appreciate or give proper importance or weight to the presence of state acquiescence leading to an unfair outcome;

(2)     the Board acted unreasonably and was procedurally unfair by placing too much reliance on the Country of Origin information (“COI”) but failed to take into account his personal background and experience; 

(3)     the Director has failed to place sufficient weight on the relevant COI which “support the aversions that the police in his country would not be able to protect”.

7.  However, the applicant did not indicate any complaint against or identify any errors made by the Judge in dismissing his application for leave to apply for judicial review.

Our reasons for decision

8.  The Court of Appeal’s general approach in dealing with appeals in non-refoulement cases is set out in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, at §14.  In particular, 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 is a fresh application for judicial review (see Nupur Mst, 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 below will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there is an error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022.  

10.  In the present case, no such error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board was observed by the Judge or was pointed out by the applicant apart from the bare assertions as stated in his grounds of appeal without elaboration as to how they apply to his present appeal.

11.  It is incumbent on the applicant to point out the Judge's errors with sufficient particulars.  We are of the view that the matters set out in the notice of appeal or his skeleton argument 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.

12.  For the above reasons, the applicant’s appeal is devoid of merits.  Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

^[1] [2025] HKCFI 4643