ANGREJ SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 441/2026, [2026] HKCA 1354

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 1909

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 441 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 975 OF 2022)

_________________

_________________

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

Hon G Lam JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

Introduction

1.  This is an appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Bonnie Cheng (“Judge”) on 27 April 2026 refusing to extend time for the applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review and dismissing his application for leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/adjudicator of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dated 19 November 2021.  In that decision, the Board upheld the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 21 May 2021 rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

Background

2.  The applicant is a national of India born in 1995 and his claim was made on the basis that if he returned to India, his paternal grandfather would harm or kill him due to a land dispute and his assault of his grandfather, and the applicant feared the Indian police due to false charges filed against him. Details of the applicant’s background, the basis of his claim and arguments advanced before the Board as well as the Board’s reasons for rejecting his appeal are all set out in the Board’s decision: see [4] of the Form CALL-1. The Judge has set out the grounds advanced by the applicant in support of the application and her reasons for refusal of the application: see [10] – [17] of the Form CALL-1.

Appeal to this Court

3.  On 30 April 2026, the applicant filed his Notice of Appeal against the Judge’s decision.  His stated ground of appeal was, essentially, that he was not satisfied with the order.

4.  As the applicant did not lodge any written submissions, the scheduled hearing of his appeal was vacated pursuant to the directions of the Court.  We shall determine the appeal on the basis of the available documents and materials.

Discussion

5.  In assessing the merits of the appeal, we shall have regard to the legal principles which this Court has adopted in dealing with appeals in non-refoulement cases: see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14]; Re Md Shohel Sheak [2018] HKCA 714 at [13]; and Re Limbu Birkhaman [2019] HKCA 50 at [11].  In particular, the role of the Court in a judicial review is not to provide a further avenue of appeal.  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.  In the determination of an appeal against the refusal of leave by the Court of First Instance, the Court of Appeal will 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.  It is not the role of this Court to examine the decision of the Board afresh as if the appeal were a fresh application for judicial review.

6.  In the present case, the Board found that there was no real risk of harm upon refoulement as alleged, because it did not find the applicant’s factual allegations and evidence to be credible.  Further, the dispute was a private, family dispute without state involvement; the claimed threat did not amount to the requisite minimum level of severity of ill-treatment; and reasonable state protection would be readily available to the applicant.  As the Board found that the applicant had not established a real risk of persecution in his home area, it concluded that the issue of internal relocation did not arise.  These are findings of fact open to the Board based on the evidence it received and for the reasons it gave. The applicant has failed to show any reasonably arguable public law error in relation to the Board’s decision.

7.  Equally, the applicant has not been able to demonstrate any error in the decision of the Judge or advance any viable ground of appeal against the Judge’s decision.  We are not satisfied that there is any error in the Judge’s decision.

8.  The applicant’s appeal is accordingly dismissed.