RE KUMAR AJAY

CACV 223/2025, [2025] HKCA 917

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 1385

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 223 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 3818 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1)  The appeal

1.  This is an appeal by the applicant against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Levy of 16 April 2025 by which she refused to grant him leave to apply for judicial review.

2.  This appeal was scheduled to be heard on 17 September 2025.  Despite the directions from the Court to the applicant dated 29 July 2025 (‘Directions’), the applicant failed to lodge written submission by the stipulated time.  Accordingly, by [4] of the Directions, the hearing of the appeal was vacated and the Court will now deal with this appeal on paper. 

3.  On 13 August 2025, the Appeal’s Registry received a ‘Request for Dismissal of Appeal’ form from the applicant.

2)  Background

4.  The applicant is a national of India.  He entered Hong Kong illegally on 29 July 2016.  He surrendered to the Immigration Department on 1 August 2016.  He applied for non-refoulement protection in 4 August 2016[1].

5.  The basis of the applicant’s claim is that he would be harmed or killed by his uncle Mulkhraj and his two sons if he returns due to a land dispute[2].

6.  The background facts have been summarized in the Board’s Decision at [11] to [29].

3)  The Director’s Decision

7.  The Director of Immigration (‘the Director’)  decided against the applicant’s non-refoulement claim on 9 March 2018.  The decision covered Bill of Rights Article 2 (right to life)  risk, Bill of Rights Article 3 (torture/inhuman treatment)  risk as well as other statutory and convention rights against torture and persecution[3] (‘the Director’s Decision’).

4)  The Board’s Decision

8.  The applicant appealed against the Director’s Decision to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (‘the Board’)[4]. After a hearing held on 2 December 2019[5], the Board dismissed the applicant’s appeal on 20 December 2019 (‘the Board’s Decision’).

9.  The Board’s finding is in the Board’s Decision at [51]-[120].

5)  Decision of the Judge

10.  The applicant filed his Form 86 and affirmation but merely stated that he would like to reject the Director’s Decision and that ‘they disregard the danger and threats I face in my country’ without further elaboration or explanation.

11.  The Judge held that she could not find any error of law in the Board’s Decision. See the decision of the Judge at [5] - [7].  

6)  Grounds of appeal

12.  The applicant in the notice of appeal stated the following :

‘ I am disagree with the decision maker authorities. They were relied on some news which officially not recognized.’

7)  Our view

13.  We are of the view that the applicant’s appeal is without merits.  The grounds of appeal consist of bare allegation without particulars or specifics.  The applicant provided no reasonably arguable grounds for judicial review.  An appeal against refusal of leave for judicial review is not an occasion for the applicant to regurgitate arguments already advanced.  The Court of Appeal would only reverse the decision of the Judge if it could be demonstrated that there were errors in law, that the Judge failed to take into account relevant matters, or the decision was otherwise plainly wrong : see United Muslim Association of Hong Kong v Yusuf Yu [2018] HKCA 451 at [38] and [39].

14.  It is thus incumbent on the applicant to point out with sufficient particularity the errors allegedly committed by the Judge in assessing the Board’s Decision.  None of the arguments raised by the applicant shows the Judge has made any error of law.  

15.  We see no basis to disturb the Judge’s decision.  Accordingly, and also in accordance with the applicant’s request for dismissal of his appeal, the appeal is dismissed.